Oracle intersted in buying Ubunutu

[Alexander Jacob Tsykin]

On Thursday 20 April 2006 20:31, Peter Garrett wrote:
> 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.
>
absolutely their conduct is not always ethical, but neither are they the evil 
organisation which many people claim they are.
> > > > 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....
>
thank you for your confidence in my integrity and willingness to admit I'm 
wrong. My father happens to work in a business which does use software 
patents and does not use OSS at all. This means that I have a different 
perspective to many who use Linux. While I do not personally approve of 
software patents, I can appreciate the necessity.Ultimately though, I believe 
in freedom, and people should have the absolute freedom to choose how they 
license their software. I do not say that you should never impose your own 
morals on other people. All of us do, all the time, and sometimes this is 
both necessary and beneficial. However, in thsi issue, I believe it is wrong 
to do so.
> > > "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...
>
sorry. It does depend on which dictionary you use of course, and there is the 
issue that many times you will not know that you do not know the correct 
meaning of the word. You can be sure and wrong at the same time. Howeve,r by 
your definition, yes I am an "apologist" for software patents, and I am 
completely happy to admit it, and do not believe it is a shameful thing.
>
> {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
>
I do not personally approve of it, however, it is not morally reprehensible 
under the circumstances. 
> > 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.
>
read the full sentence. Struggling for survival as an effective monopoly 
holder. It has already lost some 20% market share to Linux, meaning that it 
is most definitely in an uncomfortable position. They have to do something. I 
thought the meaning of my sentence was obvious, but since you have not read 
all of it, clearly it was not.

Sasha