Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
> I fully agree. In principle, at least going by my perception/belief, no
> company should benefit from the very foundations of a state. The taxpayer
> should not satisfy hunger of a businessman for wealth either.
Could someone tell me which command line text filter Roy uses to
generate this gobbledegook? It makes zero sense. None.
>
> Bear in mind--whatever motivated you to openly rant in this fashion--that
> Linux embodies the rationale that software should not have ownership or
> control. At the very least, ownership and control should be
> transferrable,
That's totally untrue. You have it 100% wrong. It embodies you HAVING ownership.
> e.g. to the government. Linux adoption will not benefit anyone (not directly
> anyway) but its users. My contributions to COLA, moreso, are
> voluntarily.
And the SW authors who license it. And the companies who sell it. And
the people who buy the numerous distro specific books. Whoops. Roytoy
gets it wrong again!
> Like you, I am fed up seeing how handshakes behind the scenes lead to
> politicians and businessmen benefiting one another through contracts and
> favours (nepotism, favouritism, etc), all concealed using shiny
> pamphlets
eh?
> and a state of extreme secrecy. Google and Microsoft are a perfect example
> of this. some employers has begun loathing Google for its no-longer-hidden
> lobbying, as well as spontaneous flirting with employees. When
> companies get
Sorry? Run that past me again? The producers of the best, free search
engine are loathed???????
People should use your search engine : http://www.iuron.com and they
can grow to love you.
> political they affect politics and become self-centric (the shareholders
> could not care less about ethics, being a secondary 'nice-to-have').
You don't half talk some shite. Almost none of the above made any sense
whatsoever. I realise English is your second language, but do try and
make some sense.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Roy
|
|
