____/ Mark Kent on Tuesday 28 August 2007 17:43 : \____
> Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
>> ____/ Mark Kent on Tuesday 28 August 2007 11:53 : \____
>>
>>> Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
>>>> ____/ Mark Kent on Tuesday 28 August 2007 10:18 : \____
>>>>
>>>>> Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
>>>>>> ____/ Mark Kent on Friday 24 August 2007 18:56 : \____
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [H]omer <spam@xxxxxxx> espoused:
>>>>>>>> Verily I say unto thee, that Roy Schestowitz spake thusly:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> | Linus: I actually don't worry about MS at all.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Why should he? After all he "likes Tivoisation", so the prospect of
>>>>>>>> Microsoft turning GNU/Linux into just another proprietary blob of
>>>>>>>> Microsoft patented code shouldn't bother him at all. They're just
>>>>>>>> "sharing" his code then "giving" it back, aren't they? So OK, what
>>>>>>>> they're "giving back" is toxic waste designed to poison the Free
>>>>>>>> Software community, but hey ... that's just nit-picking.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There's also this:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> " Linus: I don't really have a hugely strong opinion on it. Business
>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>> business, and I don't get involved with it; "
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And yet, what could be more critical to business than the patent
>>>>>>> threat, and the need for GPLv3, and the elimination of binary drivers
>>>>>>> as a
>>>>>>> lock-in mechanism? The problem I have with the above statement is that
>>>>>>> he clearly /does/ get involved, very frequently, and very deeply, and
>>>>>>> yet often lacks the kind of experiences myself and others have had, so
>>>>>>> fails to recognise what business actually needs. At least, the
>>>>>>> customers, anyway. From a vendor perspective, binary drivers are a
>>>>>>> great lock-in enabler.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have been thinking about it recently. What Linus does is, on one
>>>>>> level, brilliant. He is very focused on ensuring that he keeps kernel
>>>>>> stuff in mind. He doesn't want to be distracted, so he leaves the
>>>>>> 'politics' to others. The problem with that is that he /TOTALLY/ fails
>>>>>> to understand what Microsoft is up to (Mark Shuttleworth, on the other
>>>>>> hand, knows it all too well), so he makes licence choice with only
>>>>>> technical issues (e.g. TiVo) in mind.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Of course, the GPL was always a political issue, so you can't really
>>>>> make licence choices without considering the politics. Naive people
>>>>> always like to think that they can be separated, like sport and
>>>>> politics. They can't.
>>>>
>>>> In an idea world they could. But look what Microsoft does to OOXML
>>>> debates, which ought to have been technical. It was long ago that people
>>>> around the world, some of whom I know, accused Microsoft of turning the
>>>> whole thing into politics. As OOXML is very weak on technical grounds,
>>>> making non-technical people concentrate on politics is much easier. Later
>>>> on, the corruption came as well.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Even way back when only Telcos were in the ITU, when I used to attend,
>>> many debates were hotly political. Many countries had their own
>>> manufacturers just like they had their own telcos, and would work to try
>>> to get standardised the work of their indigenous suppliers. The IETF
>>> merely made this process overt!
>>>
>>> OOXML has highlighted that the ISO process is completely broken, and
>>> amazingly easy to rig, in this case by Microsoft, but who knows who
>>> might try it next time?
>>>
>>> ECMA is a joke; it always was a mouthpiece for a handful of vendors,
>>> but the OOXML disaster has highlighted the uselessness of ECMA.
>>
>> In BN we referred to ECMA as a coin-in-the-slot organisation and a
>> production line. Rob Weir (of IBM) showed some slides from Ecma that could
>> leave you speechless.
>>
>> The closer I looked at OOXML (Groklaw got me more into it), the more crime I
>> saw. This appealed to me because it became the next "DR-DOS"-type attack,
>> ODF being the target.
>>
>> In years to come, all these information from the TC and anonymous leaks from
>> those who attended to meetings could truly serve the courts. I don't think
>> Microsoft will walk away calmly and peacefully. It's downtown Beirut in the
>> ISO panels.
>>
>
> I think that the internet has probably put paid to that kind of
> behaviour as a long-term strategy, since information can be so widely
> disseminated so rapidly, and no amount of lawyers can keep the lid on -
> why do you think that Governments are so keen to keep preaching the
> "censorship is good" mantra? In my view, they're being driven by the PR
> organisations representing the kind of corporates who would dearly love
> a return to the 1990s.
>
> I suspect that the PR engines of the oil companies and Microsoft will be
> the first to fall foul of this new world.
I agree wholeheartedly which is why I, among others, are very worried to see
the rise in censorship. We're not talking terror and child porn here. AT&T
intercepted criticism of George Bush. It wasn't caught until last month, but
there were prior incidents. It admitted this.
--
~~ Best of wishes
Roy S. Schestowitz | Useless fact: A dragonfly only lives for one day
http://Schestowitz.com | Free as in Free Beer | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
Cpu(s): 27.4%us, 4.9%sy, 1.0%ni, 61.9%id, 4.4%wa, 0.3%hi, 0.2%si, 0.0%st
http://iuron.com - semantic engine to gather information
|
|
