| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
Duck, Microsoft: Firefox Is Coming To Retail Stores | |
|
||
| Time: 12:18 EST/17:18 GMT | News Source: TechWeb | Posted By: Brian Kvalheim | ||
|
Linux operating-system producer Linspire Inc. has found another way to challenge Microsoft: it's offering its OpenOffice.org product suite and the Mozilla Foundation's Firefox browser in a single package in retail channels. Linspire, formerly called Lindows, positions its OOoFf package to directly compete with Microsoft Office. The OpenOffice.org product enables users to create spreadsheets, presentations, and documents using files in popular formats, including .doc, .xls and .ppt. The Linspire product also enables users to utilize the PDF format. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 26 through 50 of 268 Prev | Last | Next |
The time now is
10:47:41 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #26 By 37 (67.37.29.142) at 11/23/2004 8:18:33 AM |
|
Chris, that is a horrible lie. I have received my MVP award for the past 7 years for my volunteer support in the Microsoft Publisher public newsgroups. Visit microsoft.public.publisher newsgroups (nntp) and www.publishermvps.com (my site).
PLEASE stop spreading horrible lies. |
| #27 By 7797 (63.76.44.6) at 11/23/2004 8:52:31 AM |
|
" #29, see #30, which is what I am talking about."
AWBrian, nice way to try to weasel yourself out of it. So NOW you suddenly agree that the source code can be distributed after being modified? You suddenly got beef with the fact that the original "branding" of the official version can't be distributed with a modified firefox based prodcut? LOL wow.. thats cool. How dare they protect their brand like that while allowing the code to be modified anyway. You can't just admit that you were wrong? Is it really that hard? "PLEASE stop spreading horrible lies." He will presumably stop when YOU STOP doing the same. "I can't speak for ooo2 as it has not been released, and ooo 1.1.3 is beta buggy enough on my system." Yet some people find it "Good Enough" to purchase it at BestBuy or to download it for free as an alternative. And so what if OO doesnt have an Outlook Counterpart? It doesnt stop people from using it anyway. Most people only use Word and Excel anyways. Yeah OpenOffice has a lot to be desired, no doubt about it? So what? This post was edited by tgnb on Tuesday, November 23, 2004 at 09:02. |
| #28 By 37 (67.37.29.142) at 11/23/2004 10:26:52 AM |
|
tgnb, I see you are completely uneducated and unable to follow my purpose behind the continued FALSE advertising behind the open source community.
Hardly wrong tgnb. In fact just the opposite. Yourself as well as a couple others have proven my point to a "T". And it doesn't get any better than that. If you can't figure it out, you have seriously missed the boat. "He will presumably stop when YOU STOP doing the same." So now you speak for other people? Is that part of "open" source? You are open to speak for others? I haven't lied. Nor have I weaseled. I posted FACTS as quoted (and linked) from the Firefox MAINPAGE of FAQ. 1. Fact: "Yes! Firefox is open source software, meaning that anyone has the right to download and use the browser for free, to distribute it **unmodified** to other people, and even to view and modify the source code under the terms of the Mozilla Public License. (note: you are not free to modify it any purpose you desire. You must follow the Mozilla License" 2. Fact: My MVP award has nothing to do with writing articles or is it even related to AWIN. It also has nothing to do with pro-MS slant. It was awarded for 7 years of volunteer support for Microsoft Publisher. 3. Fact: "Oooff isn't on store shelves yet. Yet you say "some people find it good enough to purchase it at BestBuy". Why are you spreading lies? They haven't even sold a single copy at BestBuy because it hasn't been ditributed yet. 4. Fact: Doing a search for f***ed company on the new beta search for MSN does NOT bring up Microsoft. 5. Fact: Current versions (or previous) versions of OOo do NOT have an Access or Outlook counterpart. 6. Fact: The open source community and it's "intent" was to promote FREE (as in beer and lunch) and have since changed it's license to state otherwise and has moved away from "FREE" because they have realized the "costs". In addition, many "FREE" sources are moving to "proprietary". 7. Fact: Nirwana pointed out that you can modify the firefox source code (even though the main FAQ page states differently unless you choose to "read more". Similar to your restrictions to obtaining RedHat, Mandrake, Suse for "free" if you "read more" and do a search on an ftp for the latest build and somehow make the consumer figure out how to burn an ISO. I prefer to deal with facts tgnb. How about you do the same? This post was edited by AWBrian on Tuesday, November 23, 2004 at 10:28. |
| #29 By 3339 (64.160.58.137) at 11/23/2004 1:08:16 PM |
|
"PLEASE stop spreading horrible lies. "
Same, Brian. "Fact: The open source community and it's "intent" was to promote FREE (as in beer and lunch) and have since changed it's license to state otherwise and has moved away from "FREE" because they have realized the "costs". In addition, many "FREE" sources are moving to "proprietary". " Huh? Which license? There are hundreds of OS licenses. Licenses do not have "intents"; they are legal licenses. And, now, after everyone telling you, you simply do not understand OS, you've gone on and on about not being able to take FireFox, recode it, and publish it as FireFox? So... What does that have to do with OS values? It's entirely consistent with all modes of development and business values. And now you are repeating that they are moving away from "Free" when clearly the code is still free. The values and models of development and business have not changed. You are just being ignorant. |
| #30 By 37 (67.37.29.142) at 11/23/2004 1:26:58 PM |
|
As was said earlier (saving me some additional research: "The General Public License, under which the vast majority of Linux-based products (in excess of 95% at last I read in Linux Journal, Circa 2004) are 'protected', was born and is still maintained by the FREE SOFTWARE FOUNDATION.
Do you have to walk any further than that to figure it out? Linus Torvalds has said time and time again: "I don't believe you should have to pay for the day-to-day software that your computer needs to run and for you to do your job." That's a verbatim quote from his own Blog that used to exist at Transmeta. He is the father of Linux and a staunch supporter of the *FSF* and *it's licensing terms in the GPL.*" Again, a FACT Soda. What part don't you understand? |
| #31 By 37 (67.37.29.142) at 11/23/2004 1:29:59 PM |
|
Updated Fact Sheet
1. Fact: "Yes! Firefox is open source software, meaning that anyone has the right to download and use the browser for free, to distribute it **unmodified** to other people, and even to view and modify the source code under the terms of the Mozilla Public License. (note: you are not free to modify it any purpose you desire. You must follow the Mozilla License" 2. Fact: My MVP award has nothing to do with writing articles or is it even related to AWIN. It also has nothing to do with pro-MS slant. It was awarded for 7 years of volunteer support for Microsoft Publisher. 3. Fact: "Oooff isn't on store shelves yet. Yet you say "some people find it good enough to purchase it at BestBuy". Why are you spreading lies? They haven't even sold a single copy at BestBuy because it hasn't been ditributed yet. 4. Fact: Doing a search for f***ed company on the new beta search for MSN does NOT bring up Microsoft. 5. Fact: Current versions (or previous) versions of OOo do NOT have an Access or Outlook counterpart. 6. Fact: The open source community and it's "intent" was to promote FREE (as in beer and lunch) and have since changed it's license to state otherwise and has moved away from "FREE" because they have realized the "costs". In addition, many "FREE" sources are moving to "proprietary". 7. Fact: Nirwana pointed out that you can modify the firefox source code (even though the main FAQ page states differently unless you choose to "read more". Similar to your restrictions to obtaining RedHat, Mandrake, Suse for "free" if you "read more" and do a search on an ftp for the latest build and somehow make the consumer figure out how to burn an ISO. 8. Fact: "The General Public License, under which the vast majority of Linux-based products (in excess of 95% at last I read in Linux Journal, Circa 2004) are 'protected', was born and is still maintained by the FREE SOFTWARE FOUNDATION. Do you have to walk any further than that to figure it out? Linus Torvalds has said time and time again: "I don't believe you should have to pay for the day-to-day software that your computer needs to run and for you to do your job." That's a verbatim quote from his own Blog that used to exist at Transmeta. He is the father of Linux and a staunch supporter of the *FSF* and *it's licensing terms in the GPL.*" |
| #32 By 37 (67.37.29.142) at 11/23/2004 1:38:02 PM |
|
Interesting read from Paul:
Linspire Brings Firefox and OpenOffice.org to Retail ... Why? Controversial Linux maker Linspire is bundling hot Web browser-alternative Mozilla Firefox with the OpenOffice.org office productivity suite to create a new product called OOoFf! that will sell in retail stores for $29.95. You can also purchase OOoFf! online right now from the OOoFf! Web site (see the first URL below). There's just one problem: The products in OOoFf! are available elsewhere for free. "Our goal with OOoFf! is to help get OpenOffice.org and Firefox into every possible distribution channel," Linspire CEO Michael Robertson said. "As users grow comfortable with these high-quality open-source products, it makes the migration to desktop Linux a much more practical transition." OpenOffice.org is an open-source office productivity suite that offers much of Microsoft Office's functionality, albeit with a less attractive, mid-1990s-style UI. OpenOffice.org includes word processing, spreadsheet, slide show, presentation, flowchart, drawing, and Web page editing applications, many of which can also export data to Adobe's popular PDF format. Sun Microsystems started OpenOffice.org and uses the product as the basis for its retail StarOffice Office Suite. Firefox, which recently reached its 1.0 release milestone, is a sudden major competitor to Microsoft Internet Explorer (IE) and has, in recent days, grabbed more than 7 percent of the Web browser market. Firefox includes pop-up blocking, tabbed browsing, and text zooming functionality and can be customized with a variety of themes and extensions. In a recent blog posting, Daniel Glazman, a former Netscape employee who now works on Mozilla projects and is a member of the CSS Working Group at the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), explained that the Mozilla Foundation had nothing to do with OOoFf! "I am not, and never was, in the loop about this OOoFf!," Glazman said. "I learned about it through Linspire public marketing emails, and I was never involved in the discussions or work about it ... I think that a retail box on shelves is a good idea to propose an alternative to people who don't download software because they can't (slow bandwidth) [or] because they don't dare (afraid of viruses) ... but I think it's overoptimistic to think it's going to really help the spread of Firefox and OpenOffice." Given Linspire's controversial nature (in this case, the company didn't work directly with OpenOffice.org or the Mozilla Foundation, and the OOoFf! Web site doesn't link to either organization), that Glazman and other Mozilla backers are a bit upset about this development isn't surprising. Linspire and Robertson have a history of burning bridges, and how the company hopes to benefit from angering potential supporters and the open-source movement is unclear. In any event, the OOoFf! package includes a CD-ROM with versions of Firefox and OpenOffice.org for Linux, Mac OS X, and Windows, an OpenOffice.org user guide, and a Flash-based demonstration. However, Firefox and OpenOffice.org are available for free download from the Web sites listed below. My recommendation? Don't pay someone else for something you can get from the source for free. If you want to contribute money to open-source projects, consider contributing directly to the organizations that actually made this software (see the URLs below). Or, if you're a developer, lend a hand to the development effort. |
| #33 By 3339 (64.160.58.137) at 11/23/2004 1:50:14 PM |
|
"Again, a FACT Soda. What part don't you understand?"
What part of that has anything to do what I said? The GPL allows for commercial products. FACT. Just because the FSF has "Free" in its name does not mean they have a problem with commerical code. FACT. Linus didn't invent the GPL, he does not determine its terms, and his opinions do not represent those of everyone in the OS world. FACT. Brian keeps typing FACT because he is clueless and simply does not get OS software. FACT. |
| #34 By 3339 (64.160.58.137) at 11/23/2004 1:56:34 PM |
|
For anyone (ahem) who does not understand this after at least 5 years of having this same freaking conversation, please read:
http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/selling.html |
| #35 By 37 (67.37.29.142) at 11/23/2004 2:31:20 PM |
| Soda, post back when you comprehend. |
| #36 By 7797 (63.76.44.6) at 11/23/2004 2:56:09 PM |
|
AWBrian:
"So now you speak for other people? Is that part of "open" source? You are open to speak for others?" I didnt speak for him. I said "presumably" which to somoene who has a grasp of the english language makes it clear that i am not speaking on his behalf. And to answer your riduculous question, no speaking on other's behalf is not any more part of open source as it is part of the rest of the world. " tgnb, I see you are completely uneducated and unable to follow my purpose behind the continued FALSE advertising behind the open source community." I think I know what you were trying to say, although it took me a while to work through this poor attempt to form a sentence in the english language. I do believe that i am able to follow your ill conceived impression that the open source community as a whole falesly advertises its product as free of cost. I just don't agree with your impression. "Do you have to walk any further than that to figure it out? Linus Torvalds has said time and time again: "I don't believe you should have to pay for the day-to-day software that your computer needs to run and for you to do your job." That's a verbatim quote from his own Blog that used to exist at Transmeta. He is the father of Linux and a staunch supporter of the *FSF* and *it's licensing terms in the GPL.*"" And IBM, HP, Sun and other huge capitalistic companies seem to agree to a certain extent with Linux and FSF. Otherwise why would they contribute tons of code to it and distribute said code under the GPL? |
| #37 By 7797 (63.76.44.6) at 11/23/2004 2:56:45 PM |
|
"I prefer to deal with facts tgnb. How about you do the same?"
It's my pleasure AWBrian: Here are some interesting FACTS which dispel some of your FICTION. FACT: AWBrian opened this thread saying "Firefox source code is not public, but mozilla is." FACT: The above statement from AWBrian is incorrect and either a blatant lie or proves his limited knowledge about the topic he wishes to discuss. --- FACT: AWBrian said: "And now OpenOffice, which was free (as was Firefox) now requires you to pay $30 for it from Best Buy?" FACT: The above statement from AWBrian is incorrect and either a blatant lie or proves his limited knowledge about the topic at hand. Firstly AWBrian already conceded that OpenOffice is not yet on Best Buy's shelves. Secondly Open Office does NOT require one to pay $30 for it. It can still be downloaded for free of charge --- FACT: AWBrian said: "And soon, no freebies from open source." FACT: The above statement by AWBrian although stated as fact is merely far fetched speculation on his part. --- FACT: AWBrian said: "I guess I should have said that you cannot distribute Firefox "modified" in any way, but you can do that with the mozilla project." FACT: The above statement from AWBrian is incorrect and either a blatant lie or proves his limited knowlege about the topic at hand. One CAN distribute a "modified" Firefox in fact many people do this and Netscape is scheduled to release a "modified" Firefox. --- FACT: AWBrian said: "I haven't lied. Nor have I weaseled. I posted FACTS as quoted (and linked) from the Firefox MAINPAGE of FAQ." FACT: As demonstrated above, AWBrian's earlier statements in this thread (such as "Firefox source code is not public, but mozilla is.") were clearly untrue. --- FACT: AWBrian stated as FACT: "(note: you are not free to modify it any purpose you desire. You must follow the Mozilla License"" FACT: One is able to modify Firefox for ANY PURPOSE one desires. One must NOT follow the Mozilla License for this. One DOES have to follow the Mozilla License however if one wants to DISTRIBUTE the modification. The purpose of the modification can be ANYTHING. Even if the purpose of the modification conflicts with the Mozilla license it is perfectly legal to make the modification. To distribute such a modification would be illegal but the mere act of modifying the source is not illegal. FACT: The above fact demonstrates that AWBrian stated as fact something that is not in fact a fact. ;-) --- FACT: AWBrian says: "Oooff isn't on store shelves yet." yet earlier said "And now OpenOffice, which was free (as was Firefox) now requires you to pay $30 for it from Best Buy?" Both statements cannot be true. The second statement is definetely untrue because Open Office does not require anyone to pay $30 at Best Buy. Certainly not now, since it is not yet available, but also not once it is available. It will still be a free download from the Open Office web site and many worldwide mirrors. --- FACT: AWBrian says: "Fact: The open source community and it's "intent" was to promote FREE (as in beer and lunch)" FACT: AWBrian has no way to determine what the actual "intent" of the whole open source community was or is and can therefore NOT state as a fact what the "intent" of the community was. --- FACT: AWBrian said: "PLEASE stop spreading horrible lies." AWBrian, please heed your own advice! This post was edited by tgnb on Tuesday, November 23, 2004 at 15:19. |
| #38 By 37 (67.37.29.142) at 11/23/2004 3:44:16 PM |
|
So if what I say is not fact, then that means that what is being given to me on the websites is indeed NOT fact. I got my information from oooff.org, getfirefox.com and mozilla.org.
Please have THEM correct the information so that it follows your opinion. As for my saying that Firefox code is not public, THAT was an error on my part. My research, as shown from the website, shows the Firefox can be distributed unmodified, or can be modified, but must follow the mozilla public license for modification. And to bring back the point. OpenOffice and Firefox and StarOffice and Mandrake and Suse and RedHat are NOT with the intent to be "free" as in beer. It is now seen that they are "for profit". How long before they pull the free nix ftp sites and the OpenOffice freebies from the site and turn them into time limited shareware. They are already pushing an expensive "support" solution, which "in my opinion" is their way to subsidise for the costs of these "FREE" products. You are living in denial if you think that the nix community wasn't spreading the false advertising a few years ago about FREE FREE FREE. And now it's turning into PAY PAY PAY. And not only PAY PAY PAY, but it's getting pretty darn expensive, especially when you look at the now proprietary Mandrake/RedHat solutions EXCEEDING the costs of the Windows Server alternatives. I remember in the old days (early FSF) when they were promoted as free. Again, you are in denial if you don't see a pattern here. This post was edited by AWBrian on Tuesday, November 23, 2004 at 15:53. |
| #39 By 7797 (63.76.44.6) at 11/23/2004 5:07:59 PM |
|
"So if what I say is not fact, then that means that what is being given to me on the websites is indeed NOT fact."
Its also possible that you simply misinterpreted what you read. For example you quoted from the firefox website: "anyone has the right to download and use the browser for free, to distribute it unmodified to other people, and even to view and modify the source code..." Based on your initial statements here i believe you interpreted that to mean that that the browser can ONLY be distributed unmodified. If you stop reading there then can understand how you ended up with your interpretation even though they never used the word only. But if you continue to read, you reach the part where it says "under the terms of the Mozilla Public License". Now if you don't know what the terms of that license are, you really should read it before making any statements. Because had you known the terms of the license then you would have known that distributing firefox unmodified is simply one of many freedoms the license grants you. "Please have THEM correct the information so that it follows your opinion." The information on the Firefox website is not incorrect. You were too lazy to find out what the terms of the license are and therefore didnt realize that the statement on the website was only one of many freedoms the license grants you. "As for my saying that Firefox code is not public, THAT was an error on my part." And it took 3 pages of back and forth for you to finally admit that. "My research, as shown from the website, shows the Firefox can be distributed unmodified, or can be modified, but must follow the mozilla public license for modification." AWBrian, your still not grasping the whole modifying versus distributing thing. You can modify the source code as much as you want. But you can ONLY distribute your modifications they were made under the terms of the license. Let me explain. Its perfectly legal for example for Microsoft to modify Firefox by adding their own proprietary code to firefox to make it a IEFox for example. They could use this IEFox internally as much as they wanted and it would be perfectly legal. They could not, however distribute IEFox without also distributing the sourcecode to it. So for internal use, they could mix Firefox with their proprietary code all they wanted, as long as they dont distribute the end result without complying with the license. AWBrian, its clear to me based on the rest of your post that you really just dont "get" open source. I believe you simply havent spent enough time researching it with the intent of truly understanding it (Notice i say understanding it, not agreeing with it). Granted, because your profession deals for the most part with Microsoft Software, this is actually understandable. But it is inexcusable for you to make statements about the topic if you are simply underinformed. If you want to discuss Open Source you should really take the time to truly understand it. Only then can we begin to have a sensible conversation about the various issues. In any case the software is still FREE FREE FREE. Except you can also, if you like PAY PAY PAY. But you don't have to. |
| #40 By 3339 (64.160.58.137) at 11/23/2004 5:21:57 PM |
|
What don't I comprehend, Brian? Please tell me.
Let's stop this "FACT:" crap too, because so far, they haven't been coming from you. Explain to me what has changed or what I don't understand about Open Source. Please. |
| #41 By 37 (67.37.29.142) at 11/23/2004 5:36:37 PM |
| Well tgnb, we will have to agree to disagree on the points we are making. |
| #42 By 7797 (63.76.44.6) at 11/23/2004 5:42:34 PM |
|
"Well tgnb, we will have to agree to disagree on the points we are making."
Agreed! |
| #43 By 3339 (64.160.58.137) at 11/23/2004 5:51:02 PM |
|
"And to bring back the point. OpenOffice and Firefox and StarOffice and Mandrake and Suse and RedHat are NOT with the intent to be "free" as in beer."
StarOffice, Mandrake, and Suse ALWAYS had a commercial product. FireFox was beta, but Mozilla ALWAYS had commercial products. The only thing that's changed is... Nope, you still don't get what the hell you are talking about. "How long before they pull the free nix ftp sites and the OpenOffice freebies from the site and turn them into time limited shareware." Never. Do we have to read the licenses to you? What don't you understand about OS licenses always requiring the source code to be openly available? "They are already pushing an expensive "support" solution, which "in my opinion" is their way to subsidise for the costs of these "FREE" products." Where have you been for at least the last 5 years? This is what every advocate of open source has been describing as the most obvious business model. Did you fall into a wormhole or something? "You are living in denial if you think that the nix community wasn't spreading the false advertising a few years ago about FREE FREE FREE." No, I understand what they mean by both free and open. You CONTINUE to live in IGNORANCE. "Again, you are in denial if you don't see a pattern here." You are both in denial and remaining to be ignorant if you weren't aware of what's been going on since the beginning of the movement. |
| #44 By 37 (67.37.29.142) at 11/23/2004 6:10:32 PM |
| Again Soda...clueless as usual. Nothing personal of course. |
| #45 By 3339 (64.160.58.137) at 11/23/2004 6:34:10 PM |
|
Clueless, but you can't tell me what is wrong? You are ignorant and pathetic as usual Brian.
You are sitting there deluding yourself with misinformation, attempting to tell us that we believed something that was never the case, all because you never did and still do not understand it. And why? You sound afraid or jealous or something... Please, point out one thing that I have said that is wrong. |
| #46 By 7797 (63.76.44.6) at 11/23/2004 7:04:29 PM |
|
"Again Soda...clueless as usual. Nothing personal of course."
From where I stand youre the one who looks pretty clueless when it comes to open source. You're probably smart enough to get it if you wanted to even if you wouldnt end up agreeing with it. But it looks like your just too lazy to educate yourself enough in order to make some real arguments that have some kind of teeth. Instead we're stuck here arguing with you in circles over things you're really not educated enough abouot in order to discuss them. |
| #47 By 12071 (203.173.50.141) at 11/24/2004 4:13:28 AM |
|
#41 "Chris, that is a horrible lie."
What in #40 is apparently a lie? Do you lack simple reading and comprehension skills? If so let me know so that I can save time in the future rather than worrying about mentioning anything about you - what's the point if you have difficulty reading and comprehending! I never claimed HOW you got your MVP, I simply made a sarcastic comment that Microsoft would in some way reward you (hence the extra special MVP) for spreading information like "Firefox source code is not public" (i.e. FUD - something Microsoft is renowned for). Now that we're clear on that, the reason why i ever mentioned your MVP is because it's funny (i.e. hypocritical) to see you claiming that everyone else can't be fair and balanced whilst at the same time you're going around basically kissing Microsoft's ass. #43 "FALSE advertising behind the open source community." What false advertising? Where is the community advertising this? Are you basing your indepth "research" (if you even know what research is) on what a couple of people may or may not have said on an internet forum? a blog? what? Even a completely ignorant person can find their way to http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php and read what Open Source is and what it is not. Did your research skip this information? Or did it just not agree with your personal beliefs about the open source community? I can only try and help educate you on the topic... you have to take the next step yourself! Ignorance is bliss, you seem to be very happy! |
| #48 By 37 (67.37.29.142) at 11/24/2004 8:27:37 AM |
|
#66. You said, and I quote
"If Brian writes a really good review then he'll get an extra special MVP from Microsoft for all the good work he's doing by spreading pro-MS information like "Firefox source code is not public". " That is a lie. That means that is it NOT FACTUAL. Did you need some reading and comprehension skills? |
| #49 By 12071 (203.173.50.141) at 11/24/2004 8:40:02 AM |
| #67 Even after explaining the comment to you... you still struggle to come to grips with it. I worry about you, I honestly do! Perhaps you just need to do some more research as you call it. |
| #50 By 7797 (63.76.44.6) at 11/24/2004 10:45:21 AM |
|
AWBrian: you should look up the definition of a lie:
"To present false information with the intention of deceiving." Based on this you cannot call what chris said a lie because it is not clear that what is said was with the intention of deceiving someone. Instead it was pretty clear that it was simply a sarcastic statement. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 26 through 50 of 268 Prev | Last | Next |
The time now is
10:47:41 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
