From: mvp at joeware.net (joe)
Subject: [OT] Re: lame bitching about xpsp2

Since you cut out every piece that had anything to do remotely with this
list, I will respond very briefly and then fail to respond to any more list
posts on this from you unless you come back to the subject of security and
away from OSS vs proprietary code.

I know what is from what source based on the comments in the source. Whether
or not you believe I know this info is well past any caring that I have for
the subject.

I am not going to do your shopping for you. I will let you go ahead and type
linux in the search box at Dell and look at what your options are. Last time
I looked a couple of weeks ago for my brother, the lowest priced Linux
machine was something like the 370 or something like that for $900 or so.
Walmart (world's largest retailer, sorry it doesn't fit your definition of
who should sell a computer) has Linux PCs for like $300. PCs without any OS
for like $225, again it has been a few weeks since I looked though. As for
IBM, no clue what is on their site. Wouldn't buy anything from them, over
priced with crappy quality. If you can't find a Linux PC from IBM though I
find that humorous considering IBM's public stance on Linux... 

There is nothing in the world I can say to convince you about others'
stances on GNU. I don't really care to try. It is simply another religious
point for you. As to your entire argument about it, your wrong. Note I
previously said I wouldn't use GNU, I haven't used GNU, hence I haven't had
an issue with it as you assume. I read the license and said NFW. There is
open source outside of GNU. Nothing GNU has/does would have helped with the
issues I had with source I shared.

  Thanks, joe
 

-----Original Message-----
From: Barry Fitzgerald [mailto:bkfsec@....lonestar.org] 
Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2004 11:56 AM
To: joe
Cc: full-disclosure@...ts.netsys.com
Subject: [OT] Re: [Full-Disclosure] lame bitching about xpsp2

joe wrote:

>>If only a #define statement were copied they wouldn't be obligated to 
>>disclose it's source.
>>    
>>
>
>I did not say that the only use was a #define, what I said was that 
>would be enough to get MS to document it if they didn't otherwise 
>outright own the rights. If you pick up a #define straight out of 
>someone else's file without change, you are borrowing their work. It is 
>small, but you are still borrowing. Someone may come looking because 
>they may think it is more than a #define especially if the define 
>betrays functionality not publicly documented. Not saying that is the 
>case here so try not to read into what I am trying to say other than 
>acknowledging use of someone else's code can occur even if it is some small
piece, even if they aren't legally required.
>
>  
>
Understood - but your point was still incorrect.

You're showing here that you really don't know exactly what was from what
source.  I, personally, have no problem with that.  It's not a crime.  My
only question is why try to confuse things and make the point that the Win2k
TCP/IP stack is not derived from BSDs code when you, in fact, can't say
either way?


>>The existance of an alternative does not make the alternative readily 
>>available.  You need a readily available alternative to prove your 
>>point, and right now that doesn't exist.
>>    
>>
>
>I would say this is a pretty poor comment on our current position. The 
>fact that you had issues getting what you wanted from where you wanted 
>doesn't mean alternatives are not readily available.
>
>  
>
OK - put your money where your mouth is.  Pretend I'm a consumer.   I 
have 2000 USD to spend and want a good PC with a good warranty with
GNU/Linux on it.  Find me a link to a major OEM that will ship me a PC
within those specs with decent hardware and a generally recognized name
(Dell, Gateway, HP, IBM...). 

The PC must be listed as a desktop system and must be easy to find.

That's your assignment.  That's the way that you can prove your point, and
it's the only way. 

If the situation is as you claim it is, that should take you no less than 3
minutes.  The clock is ticking...

>>The only problem I see there is that the BSD people didn't have the 
>>foresight to license their code under the GNU GPL
>>    
>>
>
>I think this could only have hurt its use and deployment.
>
I suppose... if you count code taken from *BSD and added to proprietary 
projects, then I'd agree...  I don't personally count that as 
deployment, though.

> Many large businesses do not like GNU. 
>
Ignorance will do that.

>Many people don't like it. 
>
Ignorance will do that.

>I don't like it. 
>
I think you're seeing my pattern.  :)  (It's not meant as a personal, ad 
hominem attack.  Ignorance is OK.  Admitting that it is the case is the 
first step to solving the problem.)

>I will never use GNU code within my code, I will rewrite what I need from
>scratch if I need it badly enough. I won't share my source, I tried, it
>turned out to be more pain than it was worth. 
>
I'm curious what you did that was so difficult.  Adding source code to a 
package is not particularly difficult. 

>I will use GNU licensed
>software because I like some of the stuff out there but I would use it even
>if it weren't GNU. I don't see why I should have the right to look at the
>source in order to use software. I am using the software by my choice, no
>one forces me to sit at a computer.
>  
>
Yawn... take take take take... what's so wrong with giving back after 
you take?

>>They've already been declared a monopoly.
>>    
>>
>
>This one always made me chuckle. The whole thing is based on the concept
>that there is no commercially viable alternative to Windows. 
>
No it isn't -- haven't you been reading?  This is a BS lie about the 
litmus test for declaring a company a monopoly.  It's a widely held 
misconception.  Market power is what's important, not the presence of 
alternatives.  That's what the law says.

If you don't like that the law says that, don't whine to me about it.  I 
can't change it.

             -Barry

Powered by blists - more mailing lists