Re: [OT] Re: lame bitching about xpsp2

[Barry Fitzgerald <bkfsec () sdf lonestar org>]

joe wrote:

> Since you cut out every piece that had anything to do remotely with this
> list, I will respond very briefly and then fail to respond to any more list
> posts on this from you unless you come back to the subject of security and
> away from OSS vs proprietary code.
>
>  
Hey -  you've had at least 5 or 6 more OT posts in this thread than I 
have, buddy.  Don't try to turn this on me.  I deleted the "on-topic" 
portion because I have no comment on it and generally agree with you.  
I'm not interested in arguing with you on that.  Nor have I, during this 
entire thread, argued those points.

What I have done is try to dispell disinformation.

At least I had the decency to add an [OT] to the subject line, unlike 
yourself.


> I am not going to do your shopping for you. I will let you go ahead and type
> linux in the search box at Dell and look at what your options are. Last time
> I looked a couple of weeks ago for my brother, the lowest priced Linux
> machine was something like the 370 or something like that for $900 or so.
> Walmart (world's largest retailer, sorry it doesn't fit your definition of
> who should sell a computer) has Linux PCs for like $300. PCs without any OS
> for like $225, again it has been a few weeks since I looked though. As for
> IBM, no clue what is on their site. Wouldn't buy anything from them, over
> priced with crappy quality. If you can't find a Linux PC from IBM though I
> find that humorous considering IBM's public stance on Linux... 
>
>  
I don't need my shopping done for me.  I just bought a new system online 
without a hard drive/OS last weekend.   I can shop just fine for myself.

The point was you proving your argument.  You can't do that and so you 
shirk the responsibility by saying "I'm not going to do your shopping 
for you..." 

That's a lame excuse and you lost.

> There is nothing in the world I can say to convince you about others'
> stances on GNU. I don't really care to try. It is simply another religious
> point for you. 
Ironically, if you knew me, you'd know that this is not a religious 
point with me.  This is pure fact and analysis. 

> As to your entire argument about it, your wrong. Note I
> previously said I wouldn't use GNU, I haven't used GNU, hence I haven't had
> an issue with it as you assume. I read the license and said NFW. There is
> open source outside of GNU. Nothing GNU has/does would have helped with the
> issues I had with source I shared.
>
>  
>  
I understand quite well the difference between OSS and Free Software.  
You read the GNU GPL and said "No F*cking way!" because either a) you 
didn't understand it or b) you want to take and not give back.

You must hate freedom.  I can only conclude from that that you want to 
take and not give back to those that you took from.  This isn't religion 
-- it's economics and sociology.  Those who wish to take free code and 
proprietize it are inherently parasitic.  That's fine -- some people 
want you to do that.  That's why they license their software that way.  
But, at least admit what effect that has.  If you can't even admit that, 
then you're fooling yourself.

I welcome you not to respond to this.  You have nothing further to say.  
You couldn't back up your points.  You lost the argument.  'nuff said.

      -Barry






_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html