Is this something we (as consumers of FreeBSD) need to be aware of?

[Chad Perrin]

On Sun, Jun 10, 2012 at 03:27:25AM +0200, Damien Fleuriot wrote:
> 
> 
> On 9 Jun 2012, at 18:48, Chad Perrin <perrin at apotheon.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, Jun 06, 2012 at 11:42:37PM +0200, Damien Fleuriot wrote:
> >> 
> >> On 6 Jun 2012, at 21:52, Dave U. Random <anonymous at anonymitaet-im-inter.net> wrote:
> >> 
> >>> Polytropon <freebsd at edvax.de> wrote:
> >>> 
> >>>> On Wed, 06 Jun 2012 11:47:11 +0100, Matthew Seaman wrote:
> >>>>> Having to pay Verisign instead of Microsoft makes no difference: the
> >>>>> point is why should I have to pay anything to a third party in order to
> >>>>> run whatever OS I want on a piece of hardware I own?
> >>> 
> >>> It's time to dump the Intel/Microshaft mafia forever. FreeBSD, OpenBSD,
> >>> NetBSD, and even Linux have ports to many platforms. Why stay on Intel? It's
> >>> an overgrown ugly mess.
> >>> 
> >>> We need to stop buying Intel mafiaware with preinstalled Microshaft mafiware
> >>> and run a free (or in the case of Linux "apparently free") OS on free
> >>> hardware.
> >>> 
> >>> There are increasing numbers of SBCs and plenty of used servers on
> >>> Ebay. They're all built better than commodity Intel mafiaware. Good
> >>> riddance!
> >>> 
> >> 
> >> You have no idea what you're talking about.
> >> 
> >> This kind of religious propaganda post is neither constructive nor
> >> helpful.
> > 
> > It should be noted that your tone is neither constructive nor helpful, to
> > say nothing of your contentless response.  Do you have anything useful to
> > say in response to what Dave U. Random contributed -- perhaps a
> > thoughtful refutation of some specific point(s)?  I hope you have more of
> > value to contribute than your obvious disdain for people who disagree
> > with you about something (without even specifying on what points you
> > disagree).
> > 
> > -- 
> > Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ]
> > 
> 
> If you had bothered to read all the other mails I've posted on this
> very specific thread, you wouldn't need to ask the question.

This has nothing to do with what I said.


> 
> If you're going to participate in the Linux zealots' propaganda that
> makes OSS defenders sound so ridiculous and delusional, so be it.

I kinda wish you would respond to what I said, rather than to whatever
persecution of you personally in which you imagine I have engaged.


> 
> Fact is, if Microsoft didn't deliver acceptable products, people wouldn't use them.

There are differing standards of acceptability, in many cases
differentiated by the level of knowledge of circumstances on which a
particular standard is founded.  It is perfectly reasonable, in some
cases at least, to question whether what many people consider
"acceptable" when they are ignorant of salient facts is something that
should, in fact, be regarded as "unacceptable", because people should be
more aware of these facts.  For instance, when someone plays a shell game
for money, it is fraudulent to operate the game while not actually having
a pea under one of the shells.  People who are not aware of the fact they
are being defrauded may consider the game "acceptable", and thus the
operator of the game may still enjoy a steady flow of customers, but
someone who knows the game operator is tricking people by removing or
hiding the pea so that their guesses are always wrong can reasonably
question the appropriateness of such a judgement of acceptability.


>
> Calling them a mafia is neither constructive (I invite you to look up
> the word mafia in a thesaurus), nor backed up by actual facts.

I never said anything about the language used.  Your statement about the
counterproductive use of exaggerative terms may accurate, but is quite
irrelevant to what I said.


> 
> OP is just going on a rampage about MS and intel.

So, it seems, are you -- just from a different direction.  The main
differences appear to be the use of inflammatory terms and the fact that
the other party, at least, is actually trying to address points others
bring up, while you intermittently fail to do so in favor of simply
attacking the person behind the comments made.


> 
> You want to follow his advice and advocate the exclusive use of alpha
> machines ?

No.  This has absolutely nothing to do with what I said.


>
> I guess we'll have to agree to disagree here.
> No, I'm not gonna use alphas.
> And no, I'm not going to let a random person (hey, choice words !) call
> intel or MS a mafia just because he's on a zealot crusade.

Great.  Wonderful.  Whatever.  This has precisely zero to do with what I
said.  Perhaps you thought you were responding to someone else.


> 
> Without MS (and IBM amongst others) it's possible that computing would
> never have reached such an audience as it has.

It's also possible that without MS (and IBM amongst others) it would have
reached a broader audience in a much more functional form than its
present reach.  We can speculate at each other all day, and still not
arrive at any statements of substance or identification of reasons you
failed to actually say anything useful in the commentary of yours to
which I previously responded.


>
> So I'm going with the (possibly false) assumption that without MS and
> other major actors, not many people would use computers nowadays.

While you are certainly welcome to operate on any assumptions you choose,
I prefer to ignore such irrelevancies in circumstances like addressing
the topic of the current discussion, and focus instead on what various
parties are contributing (for good or ill) to the state of affairs in
which we currently operate, and the likely consequences of such
contributions in the foreseeable future.


> 
> One might see MS as the ultimate evil, yet they're strongly implemented
> in corporate IT.
> One might wonder why, before engaging in a crusade, and brandishing
> empty words as their weapons.

One might also consider actually addressing what others say rather than
simply dismissing their statements outright with counterproductive and
contentless statements of derision, followed by flights of fantasy in
which one speculates on whether Microsoft invented personal computing.


> 
> I invite you to re-read OP's post and highlight what in "mafiaware",
> "wintel" and "microshaft" you find constructive.

I invite you to read what I said, stop imposing your own ridiculous
misinterpretations on it, and actually answer what I said -- or to just
state outright in clear and unequivocal terms that you are not interested
in having anything particularly reminiscent of a productive discussion at
all.  Your attacks are against people's character and against straw men,
rather than against the points people actually made.  The form of a
statement is not the same as its content, though you appear stubbornly
unwilling to address content regardless of form.  In fact, the form of my
own statements was quite lacking in any inflammatory terms like
"mafiaware" and "microshaft", and did not even express agreement or
disagreement with anyone's substantive positions on things at all, but
you have persisted in ignoring what I actually said in favor of attacking
things I did not say, just as you chose to ignore the substantive
position of Dave U. Random in favor of similarly pointless, meaningless
commentary.

"Wintel", by the way, is not an inflammatory term the way "mafiaware" and
"microshaft" are.  It is a reference to a long-standing market segment
involving the marriage of Microsoft and Intel technologies to provide
product lines intended to work together, and arose as shorthand jargon in
the 1990s as used by computer repair technicians and professionals in
related fields without any necessarily pejorative connotations.


>
> I also invite you to read all his points about why exactly intel is an
> "overgrown ugly mess".
> I regret to report I have found none, might you point them out for me ?

Perhaps you should respond to him on that matter, rather than me,
considering that my only commentary to you in this sub-discussion before
this email was about how you might want to consider actually responding
to his points rather than lobbing Molotov cocktails containing nothing
but fuel and flame.


> 
> Now, I shall leave you to read my other posts on this "secure boot"
> topic, that you might quit claiming I have nothing to contribute.

I didn't claim you have nothing to contribute.  Once again, what you are
attacking is not what I said.  I simply claimed that your immediately
previous comment in the relevant subthread was contentless.

-- 
Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ]