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

[Jerry]

On Sun, 10 Jun 2012 03:27:25 +0200
Damien Fleuriot articulated:

>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).
>>
>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.
>
>If you're going to participate in the Linux zealots' propaganda that
>makes OSS defenders sound so ridiculous and delusional, so be it.
>
>Fact is, if Microsoft didn't deliver acceptable products, people
>wouldn't use them. 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.
>
>OP is just going on a rampage about MS and intel.
>
>You want to follow his advice and advocate the exclusive use of alpha
>machines ? 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.
>
>You might want to take a minute to consider the contributions of both
>to computing. Without MS (and IBM amongst others) it's possible that
>computing would never have reached such an audience as it has. So I'm
>going with the (possibly false) assumption that without MS and other
>major actors, not many people would use computers nowadays. All this
>magnificent OSS wouldn't be of much use then. After all, who would
>need FreeBSD servers to host web sites that had neither visitors nor
>purpose ?
>
>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.
>
>I invite you to re-read OP's post and highlight what in "mafiaware",
>"wintel" and "microshaft" you find constructive. 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 ?
>
>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._______________________________________________

It is fairly easy to understand both sides in this discussion. When
Microsoft supporters refer to open-source software as "open-sore" or
"socialist-software" the FOSS community becomes enraged. However, when
the open-source community retaliates it is considered acceptable. Quite
frankly I read far more Microsoft based forums than open-source based
ones and I can say without a doubt, at least in my experience,
Microsoft proponents never attack open-source with the venomous hatred
that open-source attacks Microsoft. In fact, the majority of Microsoft
users that I know could not care less about what they consider an
overly burdensome (geeky) open-source operating system.

The whole argument can probably be boiled do to this:

Disparaging other operating systems (Microsoft) and pointing out its
failures is beneficial, constructive and therapeutic. Pointing out
problems and failures regarding your own OS is destructive and flame
bait.

-- 
Jerry ♔

Disclaimer: off-list followups get on-list replies or get ignored.
Please do not ignore the Reply-To header.
__________________________________________________________________