On Sun, 12 Aug 2007 16:11:57 +0100, Kier wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Aug 2007 07:10:15 -0700, flyer wrote:
>
>> In article <pan.2007.08.12.14.24.52.419651@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
>> vallon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx says...
>>> On Sun, 12 Aug 2007 08:36:28 +0100, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>>
>>> > The day that Linux starts advertisting in this way is the day that I
>>> > will move to BSD or whatever. Linux is about freedom. Linux is about
>>> > a different way.
>>> >
>>> > The day that Linux accepts nothing but binary drivers and does back
>>> > to school Tux ads is the day it becomes OS X. I don't want OS X. It
>>> > is just about as evil is Vista.
>>>
>>> Operating systems cannot be 'evil'.
>>>
>>>
>> Here's from the oxford concise dictionary:
>>
>> evil
>> adjective
>>
>> 1 extremely wicked and immoral. Øembodying or associated with the
>> forces of the devil. **harmful or tending to harm.**
>>
>> 2 **extremely unpleasant: an evil smell.**
>>
>> noun great wickedness and depravity, especially when regarded as a
>> supernatural force. **something harmful or undesirable: social
>> evils.**
>>
>>
>> Looks like an OS can be evil indeed.
>
> Not really, no.
Let's hear you say that with a mimetic-metal Terminator on you ass.
> It's time we as advocates stopped using silly, hyperbolic
> language and actually addressed the real concerns there are out there.
> Yes, Windows has faults, some of them serious. We will not help our cause,
> or the image of Linux screaming 'Vista is evil!' to people who are just
> going to go, 'You're crazy' in return.
I know a lot of Windows users who would fully agree that Windows is "evil".
|
|