kapil
The Kapil
join:2000-04-26
Chicago, IL | What did you expect...
...From Microsoft? |
|
osme
Premium
join:2001-09-07
Hamilton, ON | What kind of useless comment is that? Are you some kind of moron? |
|
Bananas
Premium
join:2004-08-18
Santa Barbara, CA | Gee whiz... he was just commenting on the article, why do you have to turn it into a personal attack to make yourself feel superior? Stick to the topic for what it's worth. |
|
dleaberr
Read A Book
Premium
join:2003-11-13
Spanish Fork, UT
| reply to osme
said by osme  :
What kind of useless comment is that? Are you some kind of moron?
I wouldn't go so far as to say that. The poster is merely stating that microsoft has no incentive to release open source compatible ideas/code. That is no big surprise. Seeing as how most ISP level servers are running *nix varients with Sendmail or Postfix the "Open source-ability" of the code is important. |
|
osme
Premium
join:2001-09-07
Hamilton, ON
| reply to Bananas
I was referring to his lack of explanation or contribution to the discussion. Oh well, at least he didn't make any reference to posting first.
--
StephenHarperSaid.caLiberal.ca |
|
osme
Premium
join:2001-09-07
Hamilton, ON | reply to dleaberr
Indeed. See, now, doesn't an explanation go well with his (poorly) stated opinion? |
|
keith2468
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-03
Winnipeg, MB
| reply to dleaberr
Or he just doesn't like companies full of well paid wealthy computer geeks, or he doesn't like paying for software, or lots of other possibilities too.
Unless one can read minds one can't really tell why he has that opinion.
I think it was just an ad homonym argument (name calling).
--
(Virus&Hijacking FAQ + Submit suspected malware + Backups FAQ + Security FAQ TOC) |
|
DaDogs
Semper Vigilantis
Premium
join:2004-02-28
Deltaville, VA
| Or... maybe if you READ the attached article his comment would make perfect sense.
Microsoft has encumbered the technology with a patent which would place Microsoft in ownership of core Internet technology.
Surely this would be unacceptable to anyone. |
|
tcp1
Premium
join:2000-04-17
Herndon, VA | reply to kapil
Yeah.. That's it. If the open source community rejects it, but Microsoft is for it, it MUST be bad. No other consideration or thinking is required.
Sarcasm noted, I hope. |
|
kapil
The Kapil
join:2000-04-26
Chicago, IL
| I do not think it is bad because Microsoft is for it. However, Microsoft IS a for-profit corporation. I do not think Internet policy should be defined by an organization whose first motivation is to make a profit for its investors. Such policy decisions should be make by the internet community at large and the Apache foundation is a big part of it.
--
::: Do, or do not, there is no try:::»www.kapilville.com |
|
keith2468
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-03
Winnipeg, MB
| reply to keith2468
It is not proper behaviour to make snide remarks about someone who offers you a charitable donation just because you don't like the attached conditions.
This is especially true when you are not in poverty.
Kapil does not make the argument that some specific condition Microsoft has asked for is unfair. He makes the that: "what do you expect, it is Microsoft".
Kapil argument is that Microsoft has made unfair offer, and the offer is clearly unfair because it is Microsoft making it.
He says does not address the offer is or give any real reason why it is unfair.
An argument made by attacking the entity making the argument is an ad hominum argument -- name calling.
What do you expect, it he is "black" or "jewish" or "microsoft" all ad hominum arguments -- attacking the person rather than attacking the facts being made.
»encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.c···0hominem
quote:
An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin Alternative meanings:
Literally "argument to the man", is a logical fallacy. A logical fallacy is an error in logical argument which is independent of the truth of the premises. It involves replying to an argument or assertion by addressing the person presenting the argument or assertion rather than the argument itself. ...
Even the shareware lawyer doesn't call Microsoft's offer unfair.
He just says it isn't adequate for distributing shareware.
He's a lawyer, he expects to get paid for his work, even though the product of his work is intellectual property. Unlike computer programmers, lawyers and physicians seldom work for free, and when they do, they generally do it for the poor, and they generally try to get a charitable contribution receipt for the applicable tax deduction.
Lawyers and physicians know people do not value what they get for free, whether it is physical property, welfare money, subsidized housing, or intellectual property.
Most people devalue any charitable gifts they receive, and come to believe that receiving such charity is a basic human right. This is true of "them" and it is true for "us".
--
(Virus&Hijacking FAQ + Submit suspected malware + Backups FAQ + Security FAQ TOC) |
|
DaDogs
Semper Vigilantis
Premium
join:2004-02-28
Deltaville, VA
| said by keith2468 :
Even the shareware lawyer doesn't call Microsoft's offer unfair.
He just says it isn't adequate for distributing shareware.
[gratuitous philosyphizing deleted]
I should have read your post. Clearly I failed to do that.
You are correct in your comments regarding Kapil. Thanks for slapping me and getting my attention.
Have you considered the implications of a proprietary standard being applied to the core internet infrastructure? How much will you pay per E-Mail message when Microsoft owns every mail server on the planet, because only Microsoft servers can run their proprietary standard.
This little ploy has implications which are much further reaching than just mail transport.
--
»members.ozemail.com.au/~lbrash/msjokes/ |
|
