That stupid f**k is complainging that commercial companies cannot sell closed source versions of software linux people wrote. And he doesn't also seem to know that a lot of free software is under the BSD license and can be modified and sold without source. The type of guy that makes me wanna puke...

From marsaro@interearth.com to Fred A. Miller and SuSE Linux List about Re:...:

Huh? Linux a Cancer....ok, maybe, think of it as a cancer that will overwhelm its victum and eventually kill it

Regards,

Jon

On Fri, 1 Jun 2001, Fred A. Miller wrote:

...

GOOD response from Joe Barr.

Fred

---------- Forwarded Message ---------- Subject: Re: [Am-info] Ballmer: Linux is a cancer Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2001 13:34:00 -0500 From: Joe Barr To: sujal@sujal.net, AM-Info List

Ballmer tells three enormous and deliberate lies in his response to the question on Linux.

1. He claims open source code is not available to commerical firms.

This less than a week after the removal of a page on the MS web site touting their use of GPLd code in an experimental web server.

2. He claims that if you use open source code, you have to make all of your code open source.

Linux is literally covered with proprietary code in applications and tools. His claim is absurd. Even if you narrow it down to GPL'd code, you are free to use it in any manner you wish. ONLY if you modify it and redistribute it are you required to license the derivative work under the GPL. If you simply use it, you are not required to do anything at all.

3. He claims that Linux is a cancer and attaches itself in an intellectual property sense to everything it touches. Same lie as above in a little more immflamatory language.

Ballmer probably pissed his pants when he heard the question, and in MS exec knee-jerk fashion rattled off the three biggest lies he could think of.

On Fri, 01 Jun 2001 14:10:38 -0400

Sujal Shah wrote:

...

Interview in the Chicago Sun-Times.

http://www.suntimes.com/output/tech/cst-fin-micro01.html

He would be a little (tiny) bit more truthful replacing Open Source with GPL'd (the BSD license is an Open Source license and allows companies to close-source derived software). Of course, I run closed source software on my Linux boxes, and work on closed-source software at work on my workstation (also running linux). So, he's patently lying.

But that's not something new.

Sujal

_______________________________________________ Am-info mailing list Am-info@lists.essential.org http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/am-info

--

#--------------------------------------------------#

| Joe Barr warthawg@blackhat.net | | Freelance journalist: free/open source software |

#--------------------------------------------------# _______________________________________________ Am-info mailing list Am-info@lists.essential.org http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/am-info

-------------------------------------------------------

-- -- ----/ / _ Fred A. Miller ---/ / (_)__ __ ____ __ Systems Administrator --/ /__/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ / Cornell Univ. Press Services -/____/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\ fm@cupserv.org

-- To unsubscribe send e-mail to suse-linux-e-unsubscribe@suse.com For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the FAQ at http://www.suse.com/support/faq and the archives at http://lists.suse.com

-- dieter

I'm not gonna say this too loud....and I promise I won't say it more than once, but if they (M$) were smart, they would start working on their own flavor of Linux. (Of course they would take a good thing and screw it all up, but I'm just saying...). Instead, they have set themselves into the further abyss of having it be "them" and "us". That was dumb. And I really think that in a few years, the MS concept will have gone the way of the dodo bird. And (like someone mentioned a few days ago) it'll be like the IBM thing in the late 70's and early 80's, and we'll probably someday, remember MS the same way. (I'm hoping anyway).

They don't know how to counter open source. It's one thing they can't embrace,

Damn! Don't you people watch the news? We have a dog-eat-dog capitalist in the white house. A conservative Supreme Court and a conservative congress. All lovers of big business and the way it stirs the money pot.

What's wrong with that? As a dog-eat-dog, conservative, capitalist myself (you have to grin at that description, don't you? <g>), I am a big supporter of Linux. Linux isn't a parisan issue, it's a technological issue. Let's face it, whether you are a supporter of the GOP or a Democrat, we can all agree that both parties love to see money in their pockets - and money usually wins no matter what side you are on. The Clinton administration targeted Microsoft, but probably only because they didn't like the amount of money going towards their campaign. ;-) I might actually argue that Linux fits the conservative viewpoint quite well: 1.) It's very business friendly with a low cost per unit, and a good TCO too when combined with KDE. 2.) It prevents big brotherism, be it the government trying to aquire too much power or a business, it just can't happen when everything is open. etc... Now, of course you could try to point out the liberal advantages of open source too. The point is, it's great on either side of the aisle. -Tim -- ----------------------------------------------------------------- Timothy R. Butler Universal Networks Information Tech. Consultant Christian Web Services Since 1996 ICQ #12495932 AIM: Uninettm An Authorized IPSwitch Reseller tbutler@uninetsolutions.com http://www.uninetsolutions.com ============== "Information Powered by Innovation" ==============

On Tuesday 05 June 2001 11:04 am, Curtis Rey wrote:

Amen, its about a good and practical technology. That will surely benefit all.

--snip-- Just thought I'd send this to the list, and try to make someone laugh. A friend of mine sent me an ICQ yesterday, with this statement: If Linux is a cancer, would Windows be tourette's syndrome? *teehee* -Steven