On Nov 4, 2003, at 11:59 AM, Alan Dayley wrote:
> Chris Gehlker wrote:
>> I agree with you here but I think that's just sad. If the only reason
>> people are going to Linux is because it's getting too hard to steal
>> from Microsoft, that says something pretty horrible about Linux.
>
> Why is that something horrible about Linux?
I don't think you are parsing the sentence the way I meant it at all.
The word 'that' clearly refers to the behavior of the hypothetical
people who use Linux only because they are afraid to steal[1]. The
"something pretty horrible" is some assertion along the lines of
'Linux, your virtues, stability and security, don't mean crap: your
faults, unfamiliarity and maybe a certain lack of polish, are
egregious. I would never get near you except I am too cheap to spend
$90 for Windows XP home edition." Of course it's just my value judgment
that it's "pretty horrible."
>
> People want to use what they are comfortable with. Linux can provide
> the functionality they need but it is "new" and so they rationalize
> copyright infringement. Now that the "cost" of infringing is
> percieved as higher than the "cost" of changing to Linux, they decide
> to change.
It simply pisses me off when people rationalize copyright infringement.
It pisses me off when SCO does it to Linux and it pisses me off when
Sally Sixpack does it to MS. >
> That says something about the people accurately described by this
> characteriazation. It does not say anything about Linux, horrible or
> otherwise, except that moving to Linux is a change and has a learning
> curve.
My assertion was that behavior of the hypothetical people said
something about *their* evaluation of Linux. I thought it was pretty
clear that I didn't agree with that evaluation.
[1] Or maybe not so clearly. But that's what it means to me.
(text/plain)