B Gruff <bbgruff@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> On Wednesday 04 October 2006 19:49 Hadron Quark wrote:
>
>> B Gruff <bbgruff@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>
>>> On Wednesday 04 October 2006 19:05 Hadron Quark wrote:
>>>
>>>> Its all rather sad. I'm still astonished that he uses University
>>>> resources to launch his crusade against a major SW company though : god
>>>> knows how they would react if MS were to hold them, Roy's employer, to
>>>> blame for the lies and petty malicious gossip his is spreading at a rate
>>>> of knots.
>>>
>>> That's easy - they'd fall about laughing.
>>>
>>
>> I think you might be surprised. In the same way that companies "own the
>> rights" to anything you dream up while in their employ, the companies
>> are responsible for anything a worker spews out onto the web using
>> companies resources.
>>
>> Universities are not a haven for free speech : in the day and age of
>> league tables and the need for corporate sponsorship it would be wise
>> not to put them to the test.
>>
>> By all means have a strong opinion, but don't lead a witch hunt.
>
> So you are suggesting that university staff (and presumably students?) in an
> English university should have whatever they say or write approved by an
> American corporation before saying or writing it?
No. Where did you get that idea from?
> Even if that were the case, presumably life could get a bit confusing if the
> university was sponsored by (say) Microsoft AND IBM?
>
> Interesting concept though. Presumably university staff and students should
> have been much more cautious in commenting on the dangers of smoking, and
> ought to be exercising even more caution now in views relating to the ozone
> layer or global warming, in case they offend the oil companies etc?
>
> I can't help but notice the CERN in your own headers, btw.
> Do your posts represent the Official View at CERN, or do you have them
> cleared before posting, or what?
I don't lead witch hunts against major corporations. I can see the good
and the bad in most things.
>
> (... and still waiting, of course, for your list of the "oodles" of people
> opposed to Roy's postings...)
>
Which I wont be providing : it is my considered opinion. The spread of
people who reply to his bilge is indicative enough. Dont agree? Fair
enough. But thats where my money would lie. Digest is all that's
needed. And even that it is just a rehash because Roy has stolen all the
links from other peoples feeds.
Serves which used to allow email direct to usenet have been closed for
years to stop just what Roy is doing now.
--
> The day people think linux would be better served by somebody else (FSF
> being the natural alternative), I'll "abdicate". I don't think that
> it's something people have to worry about right now - I don't see it
> happening in the near future. I enjoy doing linux, even though it does
> mean some work, and I haven't gotten any complaints (some almost timid
> reminders about a patch I have forgotten or ignored, but nothing
> negative so far).
>
> Don't take the above to mean that I'll stop the day somebody complains:
> I'm thick-skinned (Lasu, who is reading this over my shoulder commented
> that "thick-HEADED is closer to the truth") enough to take some abuse.
> If I weren't, I'd have stopped developing linux the day ast ridiculed me
> on c.o.minix. What I mean is just that while linux has been my baby so
> far, I don't want to stand in the way if people want to make something
> better of it (*).
>
> Linus
>
> (*) Hey, maybe I could apply for a saint-hood from the Pope. Does
> somebody know what his email-address is? I'm so nice it makes you puke.
(Taken from Linus's reply to someone worried about the future of Linux)
|
|
