Linux desktop lacks innovation

[Liam Proven]

On 20/11/2007, Arwyn Hainsworth <arwynh+ubuntu at gmail.com> wrote:

> I agree with Carsten, the implication was there, whether you intended it to
> be or not.
>
> > You are trying to "read between the lines" and you are making it up:
> > reading things which are not there.
>
> But they are! English is a fascinating language. There are so many ways to
> say the same thing, while implying different things. "Reading between the
> lines" is, whether you like it or not, part of reading in the English
> language, just as "writing between the lines" is part of writing in it. But
> you are a writer, so you should know these things already, right?
>
> > Go look for some of my other articles. I am an enthusiastic and
> > evangelistic Linux and FOSS user and have been for a decade. I have no
> > sympathies or Microsoft affiliations whatsoever, and I really
> > seriously and deeply resent and object to you trying to put words into
> > my mouth.
> >
> > In fact, I would like an apology.
>
> Oh please! Instead of puffing up like a puffer fish, throwing your
> credentials about and demanding an apology for someone pointing out an error
> on your part, how about admiting your error, learning from it and
> appologising for the misunderstanding? We are all human, we all make
> mistakes. It's nothing to be embarrassed about.

Nope. Don't buy it. I've been writing for more than a decade now. In
print, people paid for the words, they pay attention. Online, they
skim and they flame.

I don't buy this "we know what you meant more than you did" rubbish
for a second.

I know the case well, I know the facts as well as anyone, and I know
what I wrote.

You believe whatever wild conspiracy theories you like, that's your
prerogative. Don't go telling me what I wrote, though.

SCO never had a leg to stand on. There's no Unix code in Linux.
Everyone knows this, including SCO, which is why it never dared show
its "evidence".

But the point is, *that is not why it lost.* It never had to show its
evidence. It lost because it didn't have the rights to the code it was
arguing about.

Its case was not defeated by showing its claims to be invalid. It
never had to prove whether or not its code was stolen.

That's a big important difference and it's another thing the legions
of bloggers and so on did not notice or did not understand.

And it seems to me that the people shouting abuse at me don't
understand it, either.

That's apart from all the people wanting to tell me my article's
nonsense and that I'm wrong when they happily admit they've never even
read it. Nobody sane is going to take that sort of correspondent
seriously.

Hint, guys: before you attack something, RTFA, as they say on /.

-- 
Liam Proven • Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/liamproven
Email: lproven at cix.co.uk • GMail/GoogleTalk/Orkut: lproven at gmail.com
Tel: +44 20-8685-0498 • Cell: +44 7939-087884 • Fax: + 44 870-9151419
AOL/AIM/iChat: liamproven at aol.com • MSN/Messenger: lproven at hotmail.com
Yahoo: liamproven at yahoo.co.uk • Skype: liamproven • ICQ: 73187508