"The Samba Team disapproves strongly of the actions taken by Novell on November 2nd. One of the fundamental differences between the proprietary software world and the free software world is that the proprietary software world divides users by forcing them to agree to coercive licensing agreements which restrict their rights to share with each other, whereas the free software world encourages users to unite and share the benefits of the software. The patent agreement struck between Novell and Microsoft is a divisive agreement. It deals with users and creators of free software differently depending on their 'commercial' versus 'non-commercial' status, and deals with them differently depending on whether they obtained their free software directly from Novell or from someone else. The goals of the Free Software community and the GNU GPL allow for no such distinctions."
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2006-06-03
Your propaganda-mongering is beginning to get boring. Why don't you just write a script that randomly posts comments with combinations of the words:
'Microsoft rules', 'excommunication', 'cult', 'cult', 'cultists', 'cult', 'zealots', 'cults excommunication'
I'm(I don't speak for other people, and you should realise that the most vocal minority don't speak for me, or the rest of the community) not attempting to excommunicate Novell. I know a senior-programmer at Novell and I know that there is a lot of good coming out of that place. I also know that Novell made a risky move with their 'deal' with Microsoft, and that while this might be 'a good thing' experience leads me to be cynical.
I ALSO know that Microsoft has a big, well-earned, reputation of fighting dirty in the business world, so I'm worried that this is a potentially lethal move by Microsoft to stamp-out the competition of Linux by Litigation, FUD, or some other method.
Member since:2006-06-01
I'm(I don't speak for other people, and you should realise that the most vocal minority don't speak for me, or the rest of the community) not attempting to excommunicate Novell.
If there really were sane people in the cult, they would mod down and attack the "vocal minority" with the same energy they spend attacking me.
I see zero evidence that the "vocal minority" is actually the minority.
Member since:2006-07-16
"I have been repeatedly told proprietary software is unethical by the cult members."
This is a bullshit statement and you know it. If this happens to be true in your case, then you're consorting with idiots.
"Sure, every once in a while a cult member pretends to be reasonable in order to present a saner face ... but its all bull."
And how many cults have you had personal experience with; from which you draw this conclusion?
You're the zealot around here, and apparently a moron. Let it go before you give yourself a nose bleed.
Member since:2006-06-01
This is a bullshit statement and you know it. If this happens to be true in your case, then you're consorting with idiots.
Thats what I keep saying. Only I call them cultists on this site.
I tired to be polite. I was modded down anyway. I tried to be factually with references. I was called a liar. Thent he cultits got really worked up and their version of the truth cam out:
BSD license = slavery
proprietary = unethical
Novell is evil
mono is evil
blah blah.
Stop behaving like a cult and I'll stop pointing out the similarities.
Member since:2005-07-24
"""Sure, every once in a while a cult member pretends to be reasonable in order to present a saner face ... but its all bull."""
NotParker,
I don't doubt that you've been told many times that proprietary software is unethical.
I've heard that line many times myself. I disregard it.
I keep saying that a lot of us OSS guys are not crazos.
You keep saying that the fact that you still hear *some* people shouting the FSF Fundumentalist party line proves me wrong.
I don't see where those two statements really connect.
I believe that the OSS community has something to contribute to the world.
I'm not sure what you believe. That OSS software is dangerous?
That is more extreme than my feelings about proprietary software.
Again, I prefer OSS. But when things go beyond preference and one starts feeling that this or that method of softwate development is actually "dangerous"... that's when I start wondering if I am dealing with a fanatic.
Member since:2006-06-01
I'm not sure what you believe. That OSS software is dangerous?
Mostly I believe that a cult that attracts so many extremists is dangerous.
Lets say I worked for a company with a lot of trade secrets and propietary methods and patents.
Would I hire a fanatic who believes those things in the software world are evil and unethical to help run a computer infrastructure where those items are stored or discussed in email?
No. Because I would have a valid fear that the fanatic running the servers might decide to forward email discussing a deal with say ... Microsoft or Novell ... to the press or to some other fanatics in their cult.
How can I tell the difference between a sane open source user and a fanatic? I can't.
Edited 2006-11-13 20:35
Member since:
2006-06-01
People can use OSS software when it is most appropriate, and proprietary software when it is most appropriate.
I have been repeatedly told proprietary software is unethical by the cult memebers.
Sure, every once in a while a cult member pretends to be reasonable in order to present a saner face ... but its all bull.
The cults excommunication of Novell and mono on this site contradicts what you are saying.