Posted on 04/05/2006 8:39:22 AM PDT by luthers_inkwell
At http://www.no-lobbyists-as-such.com/florian-mueller-blog/ballmer-linux/ we're reminded that Microsoft wants Linux dead. Ballmer is once again making noise about patents.
Unfortunately, Microsoft likely does have patents it could use against Linux. IBM can probably be replied upon to fight back on the side of Linux with its own patents - supposedly they've called Microsoft patent bluffs in the past just by pointing out that they also have stacks of patents and idle lawyers ready to look for violations by Windows code. However, Microsoft might now be willing to risk the battle.
Microsoft is not in a happy place right now. Vista is delayed, and both Apple and Linux are gnawing at its toes. The increasing interest in virtualization and particularly in package/OS bundling like VMware Player is a bumpy road for Microsoft because of OS licensing. Microsoft doesn't want its OS sales pirated, but it doesn't want to miss out on that market either. Linux apps can be shipped with a free OS; Microsoft apps cannot.
(Excerpt) Read more at aplawrence.com ...
That is not the issue, quit trying to divert. The issue is that you claimed that saying a Beowulf cluster requires open source software is a lie. Open source software is part of the definition of a Beowulf cluster. You lie #1.
refuse to admit Stallman hates software patents if not all patents
You lie in your defense. I have stated that Stallman is against software patents several times. This is proven in my posting history. You are the one making the wholly unsupported claim that he is against all patents. You lie #2 and I guess #2a for misrepresenting my posting history.
refuse to admit linus torvalds went from saying no way to very possible on Stallman's new license
I admit he says no way to the DRAFT GPL3 in its current form. He has not changed that view. Prove where he has. Show where he says the current draft of the GPL3 might be acceptable to him. His latest statement on the issue is
"Well, the thing is, there currently is no final GPLv3, there's just a first draft. That first draft is unacceptable to me"Absent such evidence, you lie #3.
And VMWare/Linux and getting security updates from hacker sites? Do you admit defeat by default by not defending them in your reply?
Running it illegally is not the same as having it handed to you on a silver platter. You obviously prefer handing Iran and others our tech on a silver platter. For the commies you put a bright red bow on it.
They'll be running it legally if they go WTO. Right now the only thing that's bothering them is copyright, not any sort of availability.
And in any case, you're still trying to avoid the point, which is that nobody here seriously said OBL can't get Linux despite your claims to the contrary.
I fail to see how it really matters how they are getting the software. Legal, or illegally obtained, the facts are they benefit in any case.
Perhaps we should sick the **copyleftists**
on them. Maybe then they'd behave.
No I said they could have contracted it, instead of fattening up the government further like you prefer.
You are the one making the wholly unsupported claim that he is against all patents.
Another lie, I just said vehemently "against software patents, if not all", twice. Why do you keep defending the radical leftist?
I admit he says no way to the DRAFT GPL3 in its current form. He has not changed that view.
Yes he has, and you're lying because I already linked his later comments on the other thread. He said quote "quite possible".
Do you admit defeat by default
I admit nothing to you. Why should I based on your lies and who and what you support.
Illegal is illegal. Except to those who wish to blur the lines, and remove all hope for eventual enforcement or justice.
Quote from you from #78: "Lies that Beowulf clusters couldn't exist without free software." Fact: The definition of a Beowulf cluster includes that it is made using free software.
You made an accusation of lying, when you are factually incorrect.
Another lie, I just said vehemently "against software patents, if not all", twice.
Back to #78: "Lies that ... stallman doesn't oppose patents" We can go to the original discussion where you claimed he wanted to "overturn our patent system" and rejected the idea that he only opposes software patents. Yet you can show no evidence that he opposes all patents.
He said quote "quite possible".
Due to the fact that the current GPL3 is only a draft, so the final version could be to his liking if the objectionable clauses are removed or changed. Is this too hard for you to comprehend?
I admit nothing to you.
I called you out on lies about VMWare/Linux and getting security updates from a hacker site. These claims were by you, referencing earlier posts (thanks for links BTW, easier to refute you). You refuse to defend yourself. Default judgement to me.
Beowulf was built using free software, that doesn't mean it was required at the time, they could have easily contracted Cray to build "Beowulf" clusters or whatever they wanted to call them. You'd rather have the government do it, and tax us like Stallman wants too.
Stallman does as far as I know want to overturn the US patent system, where is your proof he doesn't? He sure does speak out against it enough. But since your head is so far up his rear, you might know bette.
Torvalds did a 180 on the draft, first saying no chance then a few days later saying it was "quite possible". And linux will probably use it in the end anyway, at least almost everything but the kernel.
And yes, several linux loons were claiming the VMWare core is Linux. It was a typical lie.
How hard is plain English? A cluster in general doesn't require free software, but the definition of a Beowulf is that it uses free software. You lied in #78. Period.
Stallman does as far as I know want to overturn the US patent system, where is your proof he doesn't?
Where is your proof that you aren't Bill Gates' personal butt bitch? No proof? Okay, I guess you are his butt bitch. You must supply proof for an assertion. You must show where Stallman opposes all patents. Otherwise, you lie.
Torvalds did a 180 on the draft, first saying no chance then a few days later saying it was "quite possible".
For a final version that he may agree with How hard is English?
And yes, several linux loons were claiming the VMWare core is Linux
Show me. All I saw was them saying they have Linux customized to run VMWare.
are taking over the world!!
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
'As far as you know does not qualify for fact, you need proof which, as always, when you lack you just say 'prove me wrong'..
And yes, several linux loons were claiming the VMWare core is Linux. It was a typical lie.
Not a lie, a typical mistake that I see people who could care less about OSS software make all the time.... If you ever worked with VMWare you would see how easy a mistake it is to make..
http://www.wired.com/news/business/0,1367,33151,00.html
Richard Stallman is one of the original developers of what became the Linux OS, founder of the Free Software Foundation...now Amazon.com's enemy.
"Amazon has obtained a US patent on an important and obvious idea for e-commerce," Stallman wrote in an email...An attack made possible by what Stallman believes is a woefully incompetent and misguided patent office, the real root of evil.
"US Patent law is to blame for authorizing patents on computational techniques and patterns of communication," he writes.
If only it weren't for those meddling --=COPYLEFTISTS=--
And yes, several linux loons were claiming the VMWare core is Linux
Then you said:
Show me. All I saw was them saying they have Linux customized to run VMWare.
I think it is referring to my comments on one of the threads that I thought the kernel used on the ESX servers was a Linux kernel. (Based on previous conversations with a VMWare marketing droid - yeah I should know better). I think n3wbi3 corrected me on that, but I can't recall specifically. I do not recall that the troll was involved in the discussion.
Of course, unlike the troll, when I find myself to be factually incorrect about something, I admit it. I'm still researching the issue actually, but have accepted n3wbi3's contention until proven otherwise. Unfortunately, real technical information about many things is difficult to locate on VMWare's site.
always screwing up the economy!!
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Another lie, you don't admit squat, like none of you do. Here's a perfect example, you never admitted this claim that Firefox had released a "patch", when in fact it was a "workaround" that simply disabled the feature. Look at your original claim, in another thread you created specifically to launch your BS:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1482107/posts
Said zeugma:
In reference to this FreeRepublic post, concerning a browser vulnerability identified yesterday, the above patch and configuration setting is the fix. In post 25 I commented that I'd download the patch today, confident that there would be a patch released within 24 hours. The above fulfills that expectation.
But it was not a patch, it was a "workaround", as my links clearly showed:
Techweb.com - Mozilla Fixes Firefox Flaw With Workaround: Mozilla Corp. has posted temporary workarounds for the most recent bug in its Firefox and Mozilla browsers that include both manual and automated fixes. "We’re looking into the problem," said Mike Schroepfer, Mozilla's director of engineering, on Friday in an interview, "and we'll respond with a patch as quickly as possible."
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1482107/posts
Notice how that was the last reply to the thread. Did ziggy ever admit it was a workaround, and not a patch, as he just claimed he always admits his "mistakes"? Of course not!
Um.... isn't that what I said?
For that vanishingly small number of you watching this thread, who might be straddling the fence as to whether or not our resident troll, the BrassBuzzard is a psychotic or not, I refer you to the parent post to which I now am replying.
Here, you have an example of someone who can get so completely bent out of shape about the difference that it might make to users whether or not a given fix for a software defect in the Firefox browser is a "patch" or a "workaround". In the real world, where users are concerned, if you download piece of software that, when executed in executed in the browser, it fixes the problem at hand and renders you not vulnerable to possible exploits, what would you call it?
Granted, if you are one of us who might be tempted to explode the file, (xpi files used with Firefox extensions are basically zipped containers of javascript, configuration information, and possible browser specific code written to take advantage of the XUL interface that Firefox uses), you might have noticed that the actual effect of this was to change some configuration settings so as to make the user no longer vulnerable to any possible exploit. This was also explained in the notices posted by the fine folks at Mozilla.org.
Fast forward to today. Here you have the TROLL still getting all worked up about the fact that I described this fix as a "patch" as opposed to a "work around". This is one of the semantic games played by this particular troll. He'll take some term used by someone and try to leverage it into an effort to hijack the thread to drive it off of the topic in question.
This is classic trollish behavior that we all see on various forums. Unfortunately, while the mods here at FR will, from time to time, kick this troll off temporarily, they've not yet seen fit to permanently ban it, so the rest of us can continue to actually use the site to keep people informed about various issues.
Again, I'd like to suggest that any fence-sitters out there might want to take a look at the tech threads here on FR from the mid-december to mid-january timeframe and make your own decsion on whether they were more useful and/or informative than, for example, this thread has become.
LOL! Ziggy begging that there might be some clueless noobs out there that don't actually understand the difference between patches and workarounds! Why? Because anyone with a clue knows he's full of it!
This is coming from a guy that just claimed he admitted his "mistakes", and referring to a workaround as a "fix" like he did is a mistake at best.
But instead of admitting the obvious, we just saw him attempt to perpetrate his fraud even further.
While lurkers who just witnessed this despicable behavoir might be shocked and appalled, let me assurre you it is quite the ordinary. Welcome to linux, the world of never ending lies.
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.