Skip to comments.Is Linux For Losers?
Posted on 06/19/2005 6:41:20 AM PDT by Willie Green
NEW YORK - Theo de Raadt is a pioneer of the open source software movement and a huge proponent of free software. But he is no fan of the open source Linux operating system.
"It's terrible," De Raadt says. "Everyone is using it, and they don't realize how bad it is. And the Linux people will just stick with it and add to it rather than stepping back and saying, 'This is garbage and we should fix it.'"
(Excerpt) Read more at forbes.com ...
Windows enthusiasts who support Microsoft products in Usenet newsgroups
Well I guess there is little doubt what youre shooting for
Today's program includes more than 1800 MVPs in 55 countries and spans 20 languages and more than 70 Microsoft technologies.
1800 People in the world huh? There are more small business in MSP than that.
Through the MVP Source Licensing Program, Microsoft's Most Valuable Professional (MVPs) are be eligible to receive Microsoft source code components for the following products:
Im looking around here, but how much of the code do these people have access to?
I think its more accurate to say he is indifferent. He will say that he wishes it was not so, but he does not care enough to actually condemn MS for doing it..
You, I, and others on this board are consistant in our opinios on the whole GPL, MS, source code and the chicoms, he is not..
Pretty much does not equal all, besides you admitted just a couple of days ago you've been running a free copy of Red Hat at home. My point is still valid and stands.
Yes, I know, you want all software to be free, for everyone in the world. Got it, long time ago.
My point is still valid and stands.
Sorry chuckko I used to pay for every redhat I used (7/8/9) until redhat eol'd them. And I donate to Fedora usually once a year. Im not using Linux because its free...
You have no legs to stand on with this one, just typical of you to try and peg someone as willing to blow up the world for free software when infact they pay for their software..
Actually, I've seen him be consistant.
He consistantly backs Microsoft, no matter how unethical, immoral or traitorous their actions are.
Even those few times that he's "disagreed" with one of their actions, his critisism of them has been so mild as to be non-existant.
And he consistantly follows the Microsoft "GPL is evil" parade, even when it makes no sense to do so.
Basically, he's a pro-Microsoft shill, unable to see wrong in anything they do and howling about anything that might possibly take a nickel out of their pockets. It matters to him not one bit that many of Microsoft's actions have been anti-competative, un-American or illegal. It matters (to him) only that Microsoft wins.
I have been a consistent advocate of the benefits of Open Source.
I've never stated that I want all software to be free.
In this particular instance, I think that Microsoft should open it's source to anyone that asks. If it ever comes out that any Chinese business recieved information about the source code that Microsoft showed to the Chinese Communist government, I think that Microsoft should be forced to open their source to everyone.
Not because I want it, but because not doing so puts American businesses at a disadvantage.
And also because treason should be punished.
Microsoft could have avioded this by not opening their source to the Chinese Communists.
But they did, and therefore they should grant American businesses the same advantage.
As a self-styled "supporter of American business (unless that American business sells Linux)" you should agree with me.
But you won't, because you don't support any American businesses but Microsoft.
BOGUS. You said CentOS, which is a free copy of Red Hat with the name stripped off. Deny it?
Your claim is that: besides you admitted just a couple of days ago you've been running a free copy of Red Hat at home.
Ill give you a week back (that is more than a couple of days)..
>please find a recent post where I said I ran centOS
Easy, you mention it several times in this thread:
Actually I have done that on CENT-OS
done: having finished or arrived at completion; "certain to make history before he's done"; "it's a done deed"; "after the treatment, the patient is through except for follow-up"; "almost through with his studies"
done is past tense is it not? meaning even a month (not a couple of days ago) I was still talking in the past tense about things I used to do.. So I ask again what do you have to support I was running centos in the recent past?
BTW: lets assume I am running it right now (I'm actually using Fedora) I donated to the CENT-OS project at that time, so am I using it because its free?
Sounds an awful lot like government welfare programs, don't it?
De Raadt is pointing out a phenomenon that every programmer has faced at one point or another: a choice of whether to re-architect and clean out the accumulated crap of a multitude of design decisions addressing different problems; or simply to work with what you've got, and work around the incompatibilities.
Open source stuff is exceptionally vulnerable to this, as by intent the open source designers are scattered hither and yon, making design decisions that first and foremost serve their own needs.
The re-architecting decision is really daunting, but eventually everybody ends up having to bite the bullet and do it. Linux is no exception. De Raadt undoubtedly has a personal agenda here, but I think he's probably correct about the need to clean things up.
Except that just anyone cant drop code into the Kernel, it get put in by a small group of core developers. The idea that some guy in topika just drops code into the kernel is a falkse one..
You said "find a recent post where I said I ran centOS".
I did. You lose. Again.
2) Your initial claim was "besides you admitted just a couple of days ago you've been running a free copy of Red Hat at home."
So your post 299 was 100% incorrect, I did not say a couple of days ago that I was running CENT-OS
3) All of this avoids the real issue (which when dealing with you is par for the course) of "n3wb is running Linux because its free ($)". Given I pay for every copy of linux in my office (with the exception of the one I run fedora on). Given the fact I donate at least once a year to the Fedora project, and given the fact when I used CENT-OS I donated to them am I running Linux for free?
Now you're going to find some way to avoid answering three, and troll around a bit more. You'll dance, you'll bob, you'll weave but in the end your claim that "he runs linux because its free" has been thoroughly proven wrong.. Sorry troll boy, your getting spanked on this one I would let it go before you embarrass yourself some more..
I'm not avoiding anything, just too busy for your childish games. You've admitted you've run free copies of Linux, Red Hat, CentOS, etc, even though you want to claim you pay for them all. Obviously, you do not. Whether it was a few days ago or a couple of weeks ago that you last admitted it is immaterial.
Obviously, you do not.
Based on what? me clicking the donate button and sending money does not count?
Face it child you lost this issue..
Your own posts, which I linked.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.