.jpg)
Thread Jester Ping
A low-volume pinglist dedicated for all the thread jesters out there--you know who you are...8^)
FReepmail rzeznikj at stout or MikefromOhio to be added or struck from the list...
Posted on 12/10/2006 2:19:05 PM PST by ShadowAce
I didn't say MS lifted the stack.
I just said my guess was they did.
There's a difference between a fact and a guess, Iggle...
...and apparently you do not know the difference.
It's still not lifting if was given to them for free, your uneducated guesses and incorrect assertions are best kept to yourself.
Oh, Gosh, so it's OK for MS to accept code for free, but not anyone else?
For the record, I already said I have no problem with MS accepting BSD-licensed code, but you are the one making an issue of Linux being free.
"Typical BS from you. Microsoft didn't "lift" it from anyone, they bought it from another company named Spider. You can read it here from one of the admins at freebsd.org, or try some actual research yourself instead of parroting the normal nonsense you hear from your uninformed buddies:"
Actually, I *hope* MS obtained the TCP/IP stack from somewhere else, whether "lifted" or bought. At least then it has a chance of being correct.
And let's just be thankful that MS wasn't around when TCP/IP was originally developed. Had they been the originator, they'd have it copyrighted, and the Internet would probably be about as "open" as MS Office. In that case, we might not even be able to use the Internet without MS products.
What are you mumbling about now? I just showed Microsoft did NOT get their TCP/IP for free, are you having trouble following links again?
"What are you mumbling about now? I just showed Microsoft did NOT get their TCP/IP for free, are you having trouble following links again?"
You seem forget your own posts rather quickly:
"It's still not lifting if was given to them for free, ..."
You are obviously implying that accepting free code is acceptable. But earlier in this thread you were upset that some people are willing to accept Linux for free.
Linux isn't actually "free" like BSD, it has all these nasty catches put in the license by the leftist Stallman you blindly support. Linux isn't American Unix either, as you know it was created by the poor son of communists in east Europe who couldn't afford or didn't want to pay for US Unix. It's really quite simple, all your twisting like Mr. Gumby in defense of Stallman and his foreign born clone O/S is hilarious.
Again there's no need for the foreign clone Linux backed by communists and leftists like Stallman. Use opensolaris instead, it has very little Stallman code and better freatures like ZFS and DTrace.
It doesn't matter where they got it from. Spider successfully ported the stack into another usable form (which they could do under the BSD license--so long as the original creator got due credit). MS "licensed" the code and stuck it in their OS,
Oh, and Spider's TCP/IP stack wasn't even designed to work in NT--MS had to do some serious porting of both Spider's stack and the STREAMS wrapper to get it to work with NT.
Did they lift it directly from BSD? Hard to say, but considering some of the utilities have basically remained unchanged, I'm inclined to say yes.
Did they at least indirectly lift the stack? Unequivocally (and undeniably), yes. Legal, but highly unethical.
Which, btw, is originally a spinoff of OS/2 and elements copied from Digital VMS (for which Digital promptly sued and got an out-of-court settlement for).
fd--add this one to The List...
Thread Jester Ping
A low-volume pinglist dedicated for all the thread jesters out there--you know who you are...8^)
FReepmail rzeznikj at stout or MikefromOhio to be added or struck from the list...
"Linux isn't actually "free" like BSD, it has all these nasty catches put in the license by the leftist Stallman you blindly support. Linux isn't American Unix either, as you know it was created by the poor son of communists in east Europe who couldn't afford or didn't want to pay for US Unix. It's really quite simple, all your twisting like Mr. Gumby in defense of Stallman and his foreign born clone O/S is hilarious."
What's hilarious is your ridiculous view of the sitation. Let me just take one of several of your distortions above. Linus didn't develop Linux because he "didn't want to pay for US Unix." He developed it because at the time unix would not run on x86 PCs.
And that, incidentally, goes a long way to explaining the dominance of MS Windows today. Unix was a far superior OS to the original DOS (and that may be the understatement of the year), but it was too big to run on the early PCs. That's one of the reasons that DOS became the de facto PC operating system.
LMAO, or so says the schoolkid who spends all day defending his foreign commie clone of Unix.
You've never heard of "Embrace, Extend, Extinguish" (testimony here (.doc))? You've never read Microsoft's own "Halloween document" showing how they like to screw with standards in order to quash competition and own the functional area of the standards?
Dude, Iggle...
Quit trying to claim moral superiority--you wouldn't know ethics if it came up and bit you in the butt.
So now you're down to outright lies to defend Stallman and your commie cloneware, not that I'm surprised. FYI Xenix ran on 386 in 1983, almost ten years before Linux was created. I was using the SCO version back in the late 80's myself, while you were probably still in diapers.
Meant to say "ran on Intel in 1983". Didn't run on 386 till 87, but still years ahead of Linux.
No windows here - Mac and Linux only. No spyware - no virus. No Problems
"Meant to say "ran on Intel in 1983". Didn't run on 386 till 87, but still years ahead of Linux."
If that's true, then I stand corrected. But that's really a trivial point. The bigger point is that Linus did absolutely nothing wrong by developing his own OS and making it available for other to use for no charge.
Suppose someone decided to build his own car. Would you say he was immoral for not paying GM for a car? And would you call him immoral if he gave it away for free? I hope not.
Your position on Linux is patent nonsense, and I think that fact is obvious to everyone on this thread. I suggest you quit digging yourself into a deeper hole.
Then again, I hope I am not just falling for a troll.
Back to your failed car analogy again? Your memory really is weak, as I already said, yes, the leftists are putting together an "open source" car, did you not read the link I sent you above? But no, I won't support radical leftists or foreign cloners/communists at any price. My values can't be bribed, unlike others we see here, even when the original US products are made available to them for free, they still endlessly defend leftists like Stalman and his foreign cloners/communists.
OK, OK, I just put on my tinfoil hat, and now I'm starting to get it. Linux is a communist plot, and IBM is getting paid off by the Russkies and the Chicoms to push it. Bill Gates and Steve Balmer are our true capitalist saviors, and I should be ashamed that they don't have more of my money. After all, my petty needs are subservient to their great need to rule the world and make it a better place (for themselves, of course). How naive I must have been before I put on my hat to block those mind-control rays!
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.