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 187290
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
archiesteel
Member since:
2005-07-02

It depends.

That's not what you said in your previous post. You clearly stated that people who believe that some things are morally wrong and some others morally right are cultists. I'm not inventing this. At least admit that you didn't clearly formulate what you were trying to say.

Now, regarding the MS/Novell deal, I myself have nothing against it *per se*, however given MS's past history of aggression and harassment of Linux and FOSS, I think it's only wise to be wary. Ballmer's statments following the deal are a good example of why people mistrust Microsoft.

My ethics are more along the lines of "live and let live." Since MS has, in the past, often showed that they do not abide by those principles when Linux/FOSS is concerned, then one can only conclude that it is *their* position which is unethical.

Do you really believe that MS follows a "Do No Harm" philosophy? Does "Linux is a cancer" ring a bell?

So ... tell me about FOSS ethics.

I believe they can be easily summed up as "source code should be free and open." There you go.

Reply Parent Score: 2

archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

"It implies that there is a group of people who believe certain actions are moral and others are not. Implying that the members are part of a ... cult. Or religious order. Or have different morals than others who are not part of the group."

There are three choices there. Seperated by "Or".


The third one isn't really a choice, but rather a characteristic of the first two. The first two are pretty much the same thing, insofar as you are using them to misrepresent FOSS supporters are people who act out of faith and emotion, not passion. So in fact it was not three choices you presented, but simply three ways of saying the same thing.

You miss the point, though. The fact is that your narrow definition of ethics is based on a logical fallacy. Indeed, you seem to believe that ethics will automatically create a "group" mentality, and furthermore that this group will be exclusive. That, however, is not true. However, to acknowledge this would undermine your efforts to paint all FOSS supporters as part of the same group - something which is not only ludicrous, but easy to disprove (one simply has to look at the differences of opinion between RMS and ESR, for example).

Ethics are personal. They do not require belonging to a group in any other way than statistically. My ethics are my own. I have constructed them over the years through experience, discussion, open-mindedness and a lot of thinking. No one imposed them on me, and they are not an exact copy of any group's. This is the *same* for all other FOSS supporters out there.

I suspect that many people in the FOSS movement would prefer to put Microsoft out of business by doing to them what Netscape did to Mosaic.

...or what MS did to Netscape. Or BeOS. Or any of the other competitors they bought/bullied out of the market.

They seem to be doing it in a kind of proxy war where IBM and Google and a few others subsidize FOSS programmers in order to undercut Microsoft and , eventually, to increase their profits.

That's a bit paranoid, now, isn't it? FOSS was there before IBM got interested in it, and before Google was even born.

Many FOSS supporters talk about this as a kind of holy war,

No they don't. The only ones who bring religious symbolism into this are people like you and tomcat.

Remember, the reason that most FOSS supporters dislike/distrust MS is because of MS' hostility towards FOSS in general and Linux in particular. There's nothing religious about this - on the contrary, it is mostly a libertarian position, i.e. live and let live - problem is that MS has never been capalbe of letting live when FOSS/Linux is concerned.

but they don't seem to realize they are jsut being used by IBM and others.

Again, they are not being used. Most were into FOSS before, and they were already ware of MS because of the monopolist's long history of disinformation and predatory behavior with regards to FOSS.

I think that is unethical.

No, it isn't, because it is not based on reality, but rather a complete fabrication, as I have noted. FUD.

Would that mean you think source code that isn't "free" is unethical?

I don't, but I respect those who believe it is. I do think that FOSS is preferable to commercial equivalents when the quality is comparable, and I support the continuous improvement to FOSS products.

It's not a binary, black and white thing. You could say that I believe that FOSS is *more* ethical than proprietary software, but that proprietary software is acceptable even though it's less preferable. However, I know that the troll's mind, like the fanatic's, is incapable of nuance, so you'll very likely reject this by coming up with some inane, fallacious analogy like "almost pregnant, bla bla bla."

It's clear you're not interested in rational debate, trolls rarely are. But at least I've pinned you down in this thread and prevented you from polluting other threads, which I can now say was in fact my original intention.

Have a good week-end, buddy. Don't spend too much time on the Internet. As for me, slapping you and tomcat around this thread is starting to get boring. I think I've made my case, and you've helped me quite a lot by shooting yourself in the foot (not to mention your constant use of strawman arguments and ad hominem attacks). Do us all a favor and go back under your bridge now.

Reply Parent Score: 1