[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Linux is SHIT

From: David Kastrup
Subject: Re: Linux is SHIT
Date: 24 May 2004 15:34:55 +0200
User-agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.3.50

"Barak Zalstein" <no_spam@please.not> writes:

> "David Kastrup" <> wrote in message
> x5fz9qazef.fsf@lola.goethe.zz">news:x5fz9qazef.fsf@lola.goethe.zz...
> > > I fail to understand why you continuosly consider sharing that kind
> > > of critical information
> >
> > "sharing of critical information" for illegal copies of Windows?
> > Strange euphemism.
> >

> I can currently think of two reasons why illegal Windows copies
> could be considered critical, or at least very important:

"Critical"?  Could you please take look at a dictionary?  It makes it
easier to discuss things when one is using the same language.

> 1. Free software developers would benefit from knowing what's going
> on outside the free software world and what are the ongoing trends
> (that was my point talking about 80x25 ghetto), while not making the
> business of selling Windows copies more profitable.

Nonsense.  Either the Windows junk is widespread enough that they can
take a look at somebody having a legal installation, or it isn't.

If somebody needs an own copy of Windows for whatever reason, let him
buy it like everybody else.  Free software developers are not above
the law.

The legal solution for software that is either expensive or criminal
to use is to either pay it or not use it.  I choose the latter.

> 2. Making a computer usable for people who really need the
> connectivity and functionality but don't have the skills/resources
> to install, administrate, troubleshoot, read, modify and
> redistribute a free solution yet (GNU is not always technically
> better nor easier).

You have no clue.  My 68 year old mother uses a Linux box for word
processing and Email and stuff.

People who "really need something" shall just pay for it.  If I really
need to eat, that does not mean I can steal just whatever I fancy at
the grocery.

> > > as a criminal activity (just do that outside of corporate
> > > environment).
> >
> > The question is not what I consider criminal, but what the laws
> > consider criminal.  That is what will get your computers confiscated
> > and you jailed or fined.
> >
> > > What if this attitude was taught (and enforced) in school?
> >
> > To obey the laws?  Actually, that attitude _is_ taught in school.
> >
> Can't argue there.  Breaking the law is a bad idea, unless you see
> the law as unjustified enough for you to encourage civilian
> disobediance (hopefully in large quantities).

Breaking the law is a bad idea, period.  And you have no clue what
civilian disobedience is.  Covert petty crime isn't.

> > > Being pedantic regarding licenses and eulas may result in
> > > confining oneself to a 80x25 ghetto buffer.
> >
> > News flash: you could just use Linux and run a lot of free and open
> > software on it, without breaking any laws, licences and Eulas.  Which
> > is what I do, and have done for quite a long time.

> You ignovre all the people who have been using Windows for years and
> see GNU/ as cheap, uncomfortable, awkward and practically unusable.

I "ignore"?  Those people had the same choices as I did.  If they have
chosen crime or financing Microsoft over the minor inconveniences that
GNU/Linux at one time suffered under, that's not their destiny.  It is
their own free choice.

> Those who don't want to care about the little details will need to
> approach the Linux market leaders,

Please look up the words "want" and "need" in a dictionary.  Your
combination of them does not make sense.

> and thus accept proprietness to some extent,

Please look up the definition of "proprietary" in a dictionary.

> making Linux not much different from Windows (different software
> portfolio, different backslash direction, different support
> agreements).
> > Linux broke out of the "80x25 ghetto buffer" some 12 years ago,
> > when the first X11 servers started running on it.
> I doubt it would have happened without outside influence,

Outside influence?  Well, of course X11 _existed_, and under a free
licence too (for which RMS' "lobbying" in the context of the GNU
project can be faulted to some degree).  And thus X11 was an active
_target_ to get running in Linux development, much like GNU was an
active target.

> and since ideologists keep warning against proprietary systems,
> software packages and drivers, what they actually do is preach
> against interacting with the real world.

That part of the real world where you surrender your rights to your
own hardware and software to some OS vendor because you are too lazy
to deal with anybody except cut-throats.

Nobody is _forced_ to join the Mafia just because they have large
profit margins.  Nobody is _forced_ to use Windows.

It's a habit you can break.  It's your own choice.

David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]