Oracle intersted in buying Ubunutu

[Peter Garrett]

On Thu, 20 Apr 2006 19:53:53 +1000
Alexander Jacob Tsykin <stsykin at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thursday 20 April 2006 17:03, Peter Garrett wrote:
> > On Thu, 20 Apr 2006 09:32:52 +1000
> >
> > Alexander Jacob Tsykin <stsykin at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > I am familiar with the monopoly case. In this, microsoft was at least
> > > partly a victim of its own success.
> >
> > *Cough* Excuse me if I don't think success is an excuse for predatory
> > business practices like those used against Netscape. Excuse me if I don't
> > think that fabricating videos used under oath in a courtroom is acceptable
> > behaviour for a "successful" company, or anyone else. I could continue, at
> > length and in detail, but my post would turn into a small book.
> >
> partly. They ultimately have a monopoly because they are popular. The reason 
> they had the case brought against them was that they have a monopoly. Lets 
> face facts, their conduct is often unethical, but their success is the reason 
> that this conduct was in issue.

/me watches the goalposts moving again. So, you admit that MS is
unethical, which is what I was pointing out in the first place.

> > > As for the halloween memorandum, the quotes he isolates seem to say only
> > > that OSS is a threat, go figure, and suggest a strategy to combat it.
> > > What is so evil about that.
> >
> > If that was all the Halloween Documents said, perhaps I could agree with
> > you. Sadly, it isn't.
> >
> > A few quotes from "Halloween" below, with my comments.
> >
> >
> > "Linux's homebase is currently commodity network and server infrastructure.
> > By folding extended functionality into today's commodity services and
> > create new protocols, we raise the bar & change the rules of the game. "
> >
> > Create new protocols - this is something MS love to do. Find a new and
> > different way of doing things, but make sure it isn't open: thus only MS
> > product users can use it, and it breaks interoperabity with other systems.
> >
> > Have you read about Microsoft's version of Java? That was just one blatant
> > example of "improving" something that was cross-platform, breaking it in
> > the process. MS are scared to death of anything cross-platform, because it
> > threatens their domination of the market.
> >
> a strategy to combat it. Microsoft is right that OSS is a threat, so they have 
> to fight it. simple. This is as far as I can see a very effective way to 
> combat it.

Ethical question: Would you approve of a plumbing company that made its
fittings incompatible with those of all other plumbing in the world?
Before you invoke the analogy police, consider carefully whether MS has
ever broken the protocols in such a way as to damage communication.

i ask merely for information ... Your position is becoming increasingly
difficult to sustain, but I'm sure you will continue debating the point,
just to be sure that you don't have to make any admissions....

> >
> > "The effect of patents and copyright in combatting Linux remains to be
> > investigated. "
> >
> > Does this seem like a nice way to compete? Or are you an apologist for
> > software patents?
> >
> no. They have their place. I don't like them personally, but some software 
> (e.g. games) simple cannot make money from open source because they cannot 
> sell support. Also, some software trades chiefly on its uniqueness. open 
> source can hurt it badly. I most definitely do not apologise for software 
> patents, because no apology is needed, sometimes they are necessary.

I think you have misunderstood the word "apologist". Just to help you out
a bit:

>From WordNet (r) 2.0 [wn]:

  apologist
       n : a person who argues to defend or justify some policy or
           institution; "an apologist for capital punishment" [syn:
           {vindicator}, {justifier}]

You say no apology is needed for software patents and that they are
sometimes necessary: that makes you an apologist for software patents. You
argue to "defend or justify" it .

It pays to look up a word if you are unsure of its meaning. Sort of like
reading the man page, you know. Context can help, too...


{snip}

> > Someone works out how to connect to one of these so-called protocols? Oh,
> > we'll move the goalposts so they have to figure it out again....
> >
> a strategy to combat OSS, and an effective one. It is not in any way 
> reprehensible. 

i see. Your position appears to be that it's OK to break, say, the
internet, networking, html  etc. in new and imaginative ways, and to lock
people out unless they use your products. (For example, sites that only
display properly in Internet Explorer, or MS versions of Kerberos etc etc

> This company is struggling for its survival in its current 
> state as the overwhelming leader of the market, if it does nothing, it will 
> fail.

Microsoft is "struggling for its survival"? How amusing.

Peter

-- 

Linux User #343161