Linux desktop lacks innovation

[Gérard BIGOT]

On Nov 20, 2007 6:47 PM, Liam Proven <lproven at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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 /.
>
> --
>
Or stay some time on groklaw.net reading around.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/sounder/attachments/20071120/44fbfc06/attachment.htm