Posted on 06/12/2006 5:41:51 AM PDT by N3WBI3
There's nothing we really need to discuss further, with your lack of respect for American ingenuity and products which have long dominated the worldwide software market. If foreign developers were equally adept, obviuosly they would have some unique and worthwhile products of their own, that weren't all knock offs of American ones. But you are certainly free to chose them if that is your preference.
I've been using Linux since summer 2004...started with Linspire, migrated to Xandros. I have Xandros 3 Business Edition with StarOffice8 included with the OS.
Unfortunately, I read some disturbing rumors that Xandros 4 will have some kind of "product activation" feature similar to the Windows XP product activation feature (which basically makes WinXP crippleware unless your product key is ok'd by MS). If that rumor proves to be true, I will either just stick with Xandros 3 Business or move to Ubuntu. I like Ubuntu, but I have had trouble getting my NetZero dial-up software to work on there. I have NetZero installed here on Xandros (NetZero advertised the software to be for Linspire, but it should work with any Debian-based OS since the NetZero software comes in the .deb file format).
I think eventually we're heading for a time where people who run DRM-compliant OSes will be looked at favorably by the computer bigwigs and the government, while people who run non-DRM-compliant OSes will probably be taxed, tracked, and traced...and I figure non-DRM-compliant OSes will not be allowed to connect to the Internet or Internet2.
I do not lack respect for American ingenuity. I am choosing what is, in my mind, the best product. I am open to trying others (which is, in fact, one of the things I am looking forward to doing this weekend).
If foreign developers were equally adept, obviuosly they would have some unique and worthwhile products of their own, that weren't all knock offs of American ones
You don't quite seem to understand Linux's history. Linus Torvalds wrote Linux specifically because the BSD (you know what that stands for? Berkeley Standard Distribution; a distribution based on the AT&T code with Berkeley students and faculty's add-ons) code was tied up in lawsuits and Minix (developed by Tanenbaum for his textbook) was not free (as in freedom). In short, had things been a little different, Linux wouldn't exist. The only reason that the "foreign developers" wrote a clone of UNIX is that the American products were not available for one reason or another.
Furthermore, I recommend you take a second look at the GNU utilities. If you think that they add nothing, you are wrong. GNU utils are written so that they can be run in POSIX compliant mode, but they also have many extensions of their own. On non-Linux systems (like BSD or Solaris), these utilities are often installed with a 'g' prepended to the name (gawk, gsed, etc.). Why? Well, a lot of the non-windows world uses them and they have a lot of slick stuff. In short, even when "cloning" there is inovation in these products.
All in all, you haven't a technical leg to stand on. You lombast it just because it isn't American made What you need to understand is that being American made does not make them inherently good. Wake up and smell the market.
The reason was clear - the American products weren't free. Now replacing the American products with these free foreign clones is not what needs to be done, it takes R&D dollars to build new and better products, something foreign cloners have no concept of since all they do is piggyback on American ingenuity.
It was more than that. Commercial UNIX systems were designed for mainframes, something that the average basement hacker simply didn't have and had no prayer of every affording. So true-blue (no IBM pun intended) UNIX was not an option. After that was the BSDs, but those were not legally useable due to their uncertain state in courts pending AT&T's lawsuit (they were trying to eliminate source access; after being broken up and losing their status as a government-regulated monopoly, they were permitted to get into the software business and they wanted to capitilize on the development of UNIX in Bell labs). The other thing to keep in mind is that many a hacker valued the freedom to alter the software to match their wants/needs. Keep in mind that the BSD software, which they were happy to use, cost money: they had to pay Berkely for the cost of distribution on tapes (which were more expensive then than the equivalent CD-ROMS are today).
Furthermore, if you want to say it is "piggybacking", then you have to say that it is also Americans piggybacking Americans. Do you have a problem with that? That is part of how the free market breeds innovation. You have to be different and better than your competitor to stay ahead.
Since the time of the initial clone, development has continued on those systems so that they are now superior to what they originally cloned. Take Linux's kernel. There is ingenuity in R&D there. The 2.6 kernel now sports an O(1) scheduler making it a far more responsive system than the older O(n) algorithms. Features have been added to these systems. Do you think that the ability to cluster Linux systems was automatic? Do you think that they were doing this in Bell labs? Hardly.
And the fact still remains that coders from all over the world including the US work on Linux. It isn't like you are buying a piece of Nigerian pirated software when you use Linux.
All in all, your opinions and "reasoning" show that you don't understand the technical history or merits of OSS & FSF. You are just out to destroy something that you do not perceive as being American manufactured. You mentioned having Linux "shoved down people's throats" earlier. It seems to me that you are trying to shove Windows down ours.
UNIX didn't require mainframes, I was using SCO Unix on PC's in 1992.
Furthermore, if you want to say it is "piggybacking", then you have to say that it is also Americans piggybacking Americans.
Linus Torvalds isn't American, he's from Finland and still only allowed in the US via a green card last I heard.
Since the time of the initial clone, development has continued on those systems so that they are now superior to what they originally cloned.
Thanks to American companies like IBM, that would have been better off putting their IP somewhere it was protected instead of giving away to the rest of the world for free.
It seems to me that you are trying to shove Windows down ours.
Where did I mention Windows? I commonly recommend OSX and Solaris. Solaris is American, "open source", and runs on Intel. It also is fully indemnified from patent lawsuits, with none of the major baggage associated with Torvalds or Stallman.
In previous posts. In any event, the point was the same. You seem to be trying to shove disusing Linux down our throats.
I was using SCO Unix on PC's in 1992.
When looking at the origins of Linux, you have to be looking at what was widely/semi-widely available in 1991. If I made an error, I am sorry. Furthermore, you neglect the other portion of what I was saying: price was important, but so was the freedom to alter the operating system and userland utilities to suit yourself. The importance of this in Linux's origins and modern following cannot be underemphasized.
Linus Torvalds isn't American, he's from Finland and still only allowed in the US via a green card last I heard.
I know he is. But Linus isn't the only programmer (in fact, at the moment, he isn't even the main programmer, his duties are primarily administrative). There are many who work as the core group of developers and many more who have contributed code in some stripe of whom there are a decent number of Americans. Linux isn't owned by Linus Torvalds.
Solaris only became open relatively recently and Mac isn't open.
What "baggage" is there associated with Stallman or Torvalds? Stallman is a virulent leftist, true, but by using GNU Awk or Bash, for example, you aren't donating to his politics or anything. It isn't like using GNU is giving to the DNC. Furthermore, the fact that Torvalds's father was a communist betrays nothing about his own leanings (about which I do not know much; the interviews I have seen with him are always about computers).
It is still quite apparent that your beef with GNU/Linux has no technical basis. It is just your own bias (and please try to remember that GNU != Linux; one can package/run GNU utilities on a Solaris or Mac just as readily as Linux).
And I don't like software licensed by virulent leftists. Obviously a respectable if not admirable position for me to take, especially since there are other "free", "open source" options available, should that somehow be a requirement.
Try to focus your narrow mind for a moment and answer this question: why does it matter? You are not paying them for the software and even if you were, you'd be paying for a product, not an ideology. You still refuse to see that GNU and Linux are not the same thing. You could create an entire distro that does not use a single GNU utility. Linux is only the KERNEL! Not the userland as well.
Obviously a respectable if not admirable position for me to take, especially since there are other "free", "open source" options available, should that somehow be a requirement.
I didn't say that it was a requirement. However, for a great many people (for one reason or another), it is.
I don't see why you loathe it so, even if I were to grant the above. Fine, you don't want to use software that has been licensed by leftists. Don't use it, then, but why get on everyone on this forum who does like it?
You're reasoning lacks in a key element: reason.
Just because you don't care that Linux is a foreign fake of US products doesn't mean that others don't. Just because you don't care that "virulent leftists" are behind it doesn't mean that others don't. And without me here to expose those facts, an uneducated lurker would not have known. He would have been misled to believe the lies such as the ones I debunked in posts such as 33 and 38. If you like foreign software from leftists, at least admit it as you have now done. But do it up front, and don't act like there is something wrong with me for questioning it.
Linux isn't a foreign fake. It isn't a carbon, illegitemate copy of UNIX posing as UNIX. It is its own product. It is a clone, not a copy for crying out loud.
Just because you don't care that "virulent leftists" are behind it doesn't mean that others don't.
I admitted the GNU founder, Stallman, is a leftist. However, LINUX IS NOT GNU!!!! Stallman is not Torvalds. Get used to it.
You debunked nothing. You only showed your irrational hatred for a piece of software.
But do it up front, and don't act like there is something wrong with me for questioning it.
I have been entirely up front. You, however, have not. The fact remains, despite your pompous postering, that the only thing you have against Linux is your own hatred. Linux is not a threat, in any way, to the United States, to Christendom, or to conservatism.
I don't hate Linux, I just realize the dangers it presents to the economy and security of the United States. If you care about the US, use products from the US, that conform to our intellectual property laws, rather than come from abroad and attempt to turn our laws on their head. There's plenty of other existing software choices already, that don't involve questionable foreigners like Torvalds or radical leftists like Stallman. Those guys don't believe in the American dream, or even understand it. They suffer from some twisted view that people should give their property away, and rely on "the community" to support them. If that's your thing, fine, but don't expect it to be mine. See ya.
"I don't hate Linux..."
That has to be the most ridiculous statement I've ever heard you make. You spend literally days at a time here, coming up with new reasons to hate Linux when everyone makes clear how ridiculous your irrational and unfounded beliefs are. It is clear that you hate it with every fiber of your being.
There's no possible argument that you could have against the average Linux user that would even come close to holding water. That has led everyone here, and rightly so, I believe, to suspect you of being a paid shill for Microsoft. There's no way that anyone could give a crap about the mind-numbing minutiae that you spout each day, flinging personal insults and defaming the character of others all the while.
Nope, I don't hate anything, it's a negative emotion that destroys those who suffer from it.
I do however have very low regard for those who push these foreign clones on us, who act like it is no concern that "virulent leftists" are behind it, and attempt to deny many of the thing that have come direct from Linus Torvalds' mouth.
If defending leftists and covering up their own words is your thing then fine. But don't expect me to go along with you.
"If defending leftists and covering up their own words is your thing then fine. But don't expect me to go along with you."
A perfect example of what I'm talking about. I have witnessed you on multiple occasions attribute statements and sentiments to people who have never made them so that you may keep your tirades going. You know full well that I have never defended any leftists, but you have to twist words and make mountains of molehills in order to make your arguments appear to make sense. No one's buying it. And when you're pressed to defend your ludicrous statements, you invariably change the subject or ignore the multiple challenges to prove your inane and entirely unfounded statements.
Did you go back and read anything that happened when you were gone? If you had, you'd realize what a parody of yourself you had become. It's sad, because you either don't realize it, or you do it completely intentionally (which I believe to be the case), ignoring any standards of reason and ethics so that you can prove your points.
Sad.
I don't have time to argue with some guy named 'FLAMING DEATH' but don't dare deny that the first few times you showed up on these threads you were linking direct to that "virulent leftist" Stallman's website as if it was the gospel. Go try your act somewhere else because I've already seen it.
This is exactly what I'm talking about. Linking to something is not advocating for it. Please explain why you think it is.
*Sigh*
Over a week, and no answer. I thought maybe your little "vacation" would give you time to work on your debate skills, but I see you're still the same old "hit and run" GE that you've always been, making stupid, slanderous statements and refusing to back them up with any hard facts whatsoever.
Again, in case you got distracted, how is linking to a site endorsing it, and if it is, how do you justify linking to stallman.com so much?
Did I miss out on another Roasting?
Same old same old. He posted, yet again, that my first posts to him were advocating for Stallman. I asked him how linking was advocating (he links to Stallman.com more than any of us) but as usual, when pressed he runs away like a frightened kitten.
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.