Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 30th Nov 2006 22:51 UTC
Novell and Ximian Novell on Nov. 30 announced its latest NetWare upgrade operating system, the Linux-powered Novell Open Enterprise Server 2. OES, which will be based on Novell's SLES 10, is designed to be a drop-in replacement for Novell NetWare servers, and a direct competitor to Microsoft's Server 2003.
Thread beginning with comment 187154
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:

And don't you think certain thoughts are required to be a full fledged FOSS community member.

No, I don't, which makes most of your attacks poorly-constructed (and off-topic) strawman arguments.

You have to hate Microsoft.

You don't. The fact that most Linux users dislike Microsoft is that in the past (and still today, at least if we are to believe Ballmer), MS has had an agenda to discredit, weaken, ridicule or even sue the free Operating System. If MS had contributed to Linux and/or published software to Linux from the start instead of trying to destroy it (as it had done for so many other competitors), then the Linux people wouldn't be so wary of the software giant. MS has no one else to blame than itself for being so unpopular.

But the truth is that "wariness" and "dislike" are not the same as hate. Hate is an irrational, passionate emotion. See, it's like this: I dislike and distrust Microsoft for rational reaons, while you hate Linux for irrational ones. Simple, isn't it?

Also, you'll find that many users who are wary of MS in the OS and Office markets have nothing against MS in other markets (I personally own an Xbox, and I used to have a Microsoft mouse). It's certainly not as black and white as you want to portray it.

You have to think proprietary software is EVIL?

Unethical is not evil. I personally am not opposed to proprietary software per se, but I do think that FOSS is preferable. However, bringing these opinions down to an infantile "good vs. evil" dichotomy is just asking to be flamed.

You have to think and say the GPL is "more free" than the BSD license?

Well, there's a good argument to be made about this, but the fact of the matter is that *both* licenses are free, they are just free in different ways. The GPL is better to protect the freedom of the code for users, while the BSD gives more potential freedom to developers, mainly the possibility to make derivatives un-free. In other words, the BSD license makes it possible for developers to restrict the freedom of users, which in itself is a freedom.

It is a well-known fact for anyone who studies law or political science that some freedoms must be curtailed in order to protect other freedoms. For example, my freedom to walk over to you and punch you on the nose is severely restricted, so that you may enjoy freedom from fear of having a broken nose. That is a reasonable limitation on freedom.

Similarly, GPL proponents believe that the limits on a developer's freedom to alter the code and release the derivative under a non-free license is justified in order to ensure the freedom of users to use, distribute and modify that derivative. You may agree with it or not, but that's part of the GPL advocate's code of ethics, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with this.

(This post is GPLed...feel free to distribute, reuse or modify it in any way. ;-)

Reply Parent Score: 2