Subj : Re: GNU Public Licences Revisited (again) To : comp.programming From : Randy Howard Date : Tue Aug 30 2005 04:15 pm Chris Sonnack wrote (in article ): > I don't have time tonight to delve into this thread much, but I > had an interesting, perhaps telling, thought this morning: > > I wonder how many non-programmer types who buy software would, in > their wildest imagination, imagine that it *should* be free. > > Seems to me the only ones pushing this agenda are those with a > direct, and IMO rather selfish, perceived benefit. *I* want to > modify my software. *I* want to get free source code. > > Seems to me, ultimately, the opposite of a moral position. > > And I've skimmed the thread...still not seeing anyone come up with > a moral platform based on anything other than personal opinion. > Frankly, as I've said, I doubt it's possible to construct one based > on first principles. I agree, they claim moral superiority, but without any form (even a weak one) of argument backing it up. > Well, enough of that. Let's go on a YA Microsoft Rant..... (-: cool. > To my knowledge (which may be lacking--but if mine is, imagine how > lacking the average consumer's is), nothing comes close to MS stuff > in ease of use, ease of setup and connectivity with other products. > > If my dad--the technophobe--can productively use a computer (and > he can), that says something. > > And I've several times offered my "Microsoft Challenge". Usually > no takers, let alone anyone who can come close. > > Fact is, in the business world and in the average consumer world, > Microsoft is pretty good, DESPITE its flaws (which are many). Let me just interject this from a post of mine recently to another newsgroup, not surprisingly, discussing software quality and bad programming. ***** For example, the last straw the sent Microsoft windows off my network for eternity happened recently. A computer system running XP, SP2, all the patches, automatic Windows updates daily, virus software with automatic updates and real-time protection, email-virus scanning software, two different brands of spyware protection, also with automatic updates enabled, and both a hardware firewall and software firewall installed, got covered up in viruses after 2 hours of letting my kids use it to go play some stupid online kids game on disney.com or nickelodeon.com (not sure which, since they went to both, and I didn't want to replicate it). Suddenly, when I come back to look at it, it has 3 or 4 new taskbar icons showing downloads in progress of I know not what task manager shows a bunch of extra processes that shouldn't be there, the registry run keys are stuffed fool of malware, and it's pushing stuff out the network of I know not what. I pull the cable, start trying to delete files, which Windows wants to tell me I don't have permission to do, scanning, the browser cache directories are filled with .exe and .dll files, it's out of control. A few expletives later, and I was installing a new Linux distro that I had been meaning to try out for a while. I had done just about everything I could imagine to lock the system down, and it still got out of control in 2 hours letting a 12-yr-old browse a website and play some games. Of course, if enough people do the same thing, the bad guys will figure out how to do this on Linux boxes as well. But for now, the OS X and Linux systems have been causing me (and the kids) zero pain and I'm loving it. **** >> Personally, I'd rather spend my time getting work done than >> worrying about the latest 'outbreak' that my system needs to be >> immunized against. > > I get work done. I use MS products heavily. I don't worry much > about viruses, and they haven't been much of an issue. And, again, > to the extent they HAVE been, the benefits outweigh the problems. > > But then, I'm careful, keep anti-Virus software current and rarely > surf the net, and then nearly always to professional sites. I'm > also careful about email, AND I live behind a firewall. See above. I thought /exactly/ the same thing you do, until recently, when it turned out to not be good enough. -- Randy Howard (2reply remove FOOBAR) .