how-to block ads
|
Jason Levine
Premium
join:2001-07-13
USA
| reply to justanutter1
Re: Are they even able to do that?
said by justanutter1:
There are so many people who have a copy of that code at this point that NOBODY is going to be prosecuted, guess why... Yeah, because Microsoft, yes even Microsoft is IMPOTENT to stop it.
Really? I would guess they would take the same tactic that the RIAA is currently using. Sue the uploaders and the downloaders won't have anything to download. And unlike some of the RIAA's actions, this one I would completely agree with.
said by justanutter1:
All that said, you ARE going to discover that Microsoft has stolen more of the GNU/GPL code than Linux has stolen of the SCO code... Mark my words.
Is there any proof to this claim or is it just an anti-MS rant? Yes, I know Microsoft isn't exactly a "cute and cuddly" company, and they've done more than their share of bad deeds, but call me crazy for still demanding some proof to an allegation like this.
--
-Jason Levine
http://www.jasons-toolbox.com/
http://www.PCQandA.com/
http://www.urateit.com/ | |
justanutter1
@kaballero.com
| Justin;
I suppose they could take the same tactic RIAA is currently using if they could ever figure out who did it in the first place. Unlikely. They might stop kids from sharing the files but they won't stop the files from being shared via Freenet.
Personally, Jason, when I say that I believe one thing and then demonstrate that I only believe it when it is convienent for me... I only prove I have prejudices.
Your disregard for RIAA (and their rights) while you support Microsoft in precisely the same circumstances, demonstrates that you are in fact prejudiced in favor of Microsoft. That won't come to many as a suprise but it is nice to see you demonstrate it so clearly.
RE: ...CODE STOLEN...
That is speculation based upon the smoking gun of a makefile from GPL which found its way into the Microsoft sources. A smoking gun does not a murder make, and neither does 17 lines of code which SCO refuses to produce in a similar situation. Microsoft has a history of not being forth coming. I also speculate that the code in question was stolen in the breakin on the Microsoft network in the year 2000. I know Microsoft says it was another company that lost the code, still what would have happened with the sales of Win2K if it had been published in October of 2000 that significant portions of the code had been stolen and were thought to be in Russia? What would be the best way to handle that from a security perspective, would it be to tell people what had been compromised so that they could judge for themselves what the wanted to run, or would it be to not tell anyone what was compromised? Now let's ask the same question from a financial perspective? Like I said, Microsoft does not have a history of openess or honesty and they certainly must have had financial reasons for not telling us what was stolen in the breakin of 2000 because they impacted the security of millions of systems by not telling us. Such risks are weighed carefully. Microsoft chose the smaller financial risk and elected to keep Win2K alive.
Jason, you are so completely in love with Microsoft. You are such a champion of her cause, I would never even bother trying to prove anything for you. I'll just wait and Microsoft will prove it for me. It is just a matter of time. | |
Jason Levine
Premium
join:2001-07-13
USA
| said by justanutter1:
Personally, Jason, when I say that I believe one thing and then demonstrate that I only believe it when it is convienent for me... I only prove I have prejudices.
Your disregard for RIAA (and their rights) while you support Microsoft in precisely the same circumstances, demonstrates that you are in fact prejudiced in favor of Microsoft. That won't come to many as a suprise but it is nice to see you demonstrate it so clearly.
I think the RIAA is making a big PR mistake because they are going to be seen as suing their customers. In addition, I think that they are using tactics to ensure settlements even if they have the wrong person. (I think the penalties are too high and out of proportion also, but that's the DCMA, not the RIAA directly.)
I do think downloading music is wrong and illegal. The little music I obtain is mostly from used CD shops with the occasional new CD. This way I can rip to high-quality, DRM-free MP3 for my own personal use. The online services look nice, but I've never been one to buy much music so my buying habits really haven't changed much through the years. (If anything, used CD shops have increased it slightly, but the RIAA wouldn't like that.  )
In Microsoft's case, we're talking about their source code. In this respect I admit I might be biased, but not because it's MS. I write software that isn't open source. If the source code to my applications were stolen and circulated world-wide I would feel quite violated.
If the source code was written by me, it belongs to me and only I should say what happens to it. If I were to decide to make an application open source, that would be my choice. However, no one should decide that my application needs to be open source and then take steps to release the source code despite my wishes.
said by justanutter1:
RE: ...CODE STOLEN...
That is speculation based upon the smoking gun of a makefile from GPL which found its way into the Microsoft sources. A smoking gun does not a murder make, and neither does 17 lines of code which SCO refuses to produce in a similar situation.
If there's evidence of this, I'd be interested in seeing it, but this would be the first I've heard of this claim. (How someone would know that something found it's way into MS's source when very few outside of MS have seen the source would be one of my first questions.)
As for SCO, they're simply blowing smoke and hoping that everyone believes their claims. I'm actually quite enjoying it every time IBM or Novell blows another hole in their argument.
said by justanutter1:
Microsoft has a history of not being forth coming. I also speculate that the code in question was stolen in the breakin on the Microsoft network in the year 2000.
I'd have trouble believing that the stolen code would be able to sneak beneath the radar for over 3 years. AFAIK, there is some pretty good evidence that Mainsoft was the source of the leak.
said by justanutter1:
Jason, you are so completely in love with Microsoft. You are such a champion of her cause, I would never even bother trying to prove anything for you. I'll just wait and Microsoft will prove it for me. It is just a matter of time.
Nah. I'm not in love with MS. (For the record, I run OpenOffice.org on all of my PCs because I think MS Office isn't worth near what they charge for it.) I just tend to be quite skeptical when someone presents a huge conspiracy theory with little or no evidence to back it up. Yes, MS is quite a despicable company at times, but that doesn't make every bad theory about them true.
--
-Jason Levine
http://www.jasons-toolbox.com/
http://www.PCQandA.com/
http://www.urateit.com/ | |
justanutter1
@kaballero.com | Jason;
Well argued. Thanks for taking the time to work thur it reasonably. I don't disagree with anything you've said.
-m- | |
|
