Re: An Open Letter To The Linux Enthusiasts.
From: Peter T. Breuer (ptb_at_lab.it.uc3m.es)
Date: Sun, 5 Jun 2005 21:32:22 +0200
Unruh <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> email@example.com (Peter T. Breuer) writes:
> >> I assume you kick you dog when your boss annoys you as well.
> >No, I kick the boss, or other source of annoyance. I hit the dog when
> >he bites. In this case I kick the annoying customers of MS, so that
> >they will fix THEIR software, since the software is annoying me. I
> And how is their software annoying you? It is their reader, not yours.
Their software annoys me by making it difficult for them to post
properly, and by giving them the impression that posting imporperly is
correct. That it also has the begin-two-spaces bug is another nail in
its shroud as far as I am concerned.
> >don't care how they do it, but the obvious route is "complain to MS"
> >about that bug, and many more, until MS are good and riled and fix it.
> >I have no standing vs. MS. The people who use its software are the
> >people to complain to MS about the software's bugs. I fail to see your
> >point (not surprising, since you don't have one). Look - when somebody
> >smokes in my face I do not complain to Camel Tobacco, Inc.
> You are smoking in their face, not they in yours. This bug affects you not
> at all.
I am doing nothing - it is their software which makes it appear so to
them, when in fact nothing is exactly what is happening or being done.
> >> No, You do, I don't.
> >Then learn to complain to MS (assuming you to be a customer of MS).
> And now you cannot read and have no memory either. Had you read the post
> you would have seen that I USE LINUX.
I know you said so about yourself. The above sentence is even stated to
be predicated on the hypothesis that it is talking to an MS custmer,
just to make sure that you do not take it as invalid.
> Short memoryyou have. And the one case in which you could have had an
> impact on Linux you chickened out (getting Redhat to explain their
> licensing terms.) You talk a big talk but are unwilling to walk the walk.
What are you on about?
RH allegedly tried to contact me by phone. I mailed the person who said
they tried to contact me but never had any reply back from them. I
could go telephone them, I suppose, but I want whatever they say in
writing, so I do not want to engage in telephone contact.
I've since seen clarifications of their licence (can't remember where)
by them which make it clear that as written it is a load of cack, and
the real intention of the licence has to be gleaned from elsewhere.
That may or may not be deliberate.