On Sunday 24 December 2006 20:55, J Sloan wrote: > > ... > > No need. Perhaps I was too hasty to dismiss your questions - Each of > the points you reference above can be easily grasped with just a bit > of thought, but I hesitate to put a lot of work into explaining all > these points if you're really determined not to understand.
On the contrary. I want a discussion that is not dripping with ambiguity, imagery and allusion and not so laden with emotion. Nothing good is served by carrying on in that manner. You could call it FUD... > The bottom line is that you apparently see no danger to linux, but I > do - as for the details, they will have to await another post, when I > have some time to laboriously explain each of the common terms used > above. In fact, I see no danger to Linux because you cannot destroy an idea. Linux is too entrenched and too important to far too many individuals and organizations, including large business concerns, distributed all over the globe to be allowed to die or be killed. Consider the RIM / Blackberry suit. It was resolved because the technology was just too damn important to too many "important" people in the U.S. (i.e., people willing to shell out huge bucks to be distracted by their email at all times in all places) to be allowed to go dark. The same holds for Linux, only in a much less frivolous way. > Joe Randall Schulz -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
