Wow, this is one of the more rational posts I read from you. On 10/7/05, Will Hill <williamhill2 at cox.net> wrote: > > You know, this whole disscussion seems turned on it's head. I'm an > advocate > of free software and could care less what people actually use. Microsoft > is > an advocate of their own software and no other. They spend lots of money > to > "kill", "destroy", defame and otherwise eliminate all other because they > are > afraid any other software will ruin their dominance of the industry and > outrageous profit margins. Yet you call me a paranoid, ravenous idiot.
If it improves your capability to reason, then my goal is reached. My description of you as being a "ravenous wolf" was meant as tongue in cheek. The "paranoid" comment stands on its own. The last time I checked no free software project had ever: > > -bullied a vendor > -sued a public school > -lied about who they were to gain credibility in someone else's forum > -intentionally broken someone else's software No argument here. Microsoft did all of these things. -spent a billion dollars promoting itself Huh? This is a crime? unethical? stomps on kittens? -spent money smearing other software This maybe unethical, depending on how it is done, but it is not illegal in this country. Sun, Oracle, Apple, etc. smear other manufacturers software whenever they get the chance. -built a closed source BIOS that would keep other software from running and This IMO is not a good business move, but certainly within the current law. protected it by purchasing Federal laws like the DMCA. Well, now here I think you are putting your toe in the tin-foil-hat waters. I simply find this hard to believe on the face of it. What's wrong with remembering what Microsoft does and projecting it to their > current activity? Nothing. You are free to extrapolate. I am free to respond. In the case of Microsoft hating Google because Microsoft wants to suppress Google's capability to inform people, you are wrong. Not only that, you are irrational in your argument. I'd rather rankle you and goad you into being a better debater than let you go willy-nilly making irrational arguments. What's wrong with pointing out the hazards of running > Microsoft software? How does any of that hurt free software? If I said that pointing out the hazards of running Microsoft was wrong, then I was wrong to do so. However, some of your opinions about the "hazards" are suspect. In my opinion, of course. I don't trust Microsoft because of the bad things they have done and the bad > things that happen to people who use their software. Hey, fine, I don't trust Microsoft either, depending on what I am using it for. But when you say that "bad things that happen to people who use their software", it just seems to me that you are being more of a zealot than rational. Believe it or not, I've had Linux crash on me. I was crushed, but I've gotten over it. ;) If you want to defend Microsoft, you could do a better job than name > calling. Again, my purpose is not to defend Microsoft, but to influence you to be more rational in your posts. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I've agreed with you many times that Microsoft makes crap and does nasty things doing it, but I have yet to see any rational evidence from you supporting your "Microsoft hates Google because Google says truth" claim. The truth is that Microsoft hates Google because Google is competing. Same goes for Linux. It gives me hope that Microsoft hates Google/Linux. That means Google/Linux is doing something right. May the best technology win. John -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://brlug.net/pipermail/general_brlug.net/attachments/20051007/49bd2207/attachment.htm
