Formulated so blandly that what?

Post #24,376 by ben_tilly 1/14/02 7:59:20 PM Reply	Formulated so blandly that what? What Karsten said is that Microsoft can get away with throwing its licensing weight around, and he called Borland a 3 ounce gorilla. This is an obvious reference to Microsoft being an 800 pound gorilla who can do pretty much whatever it pleases no matter what others think about it. What is part and parcel of the image is that nobody likes it when the 800 pound gorilla throws its weight around, they just aren't willing to argue with 800 pounds. The only difference between Borland and Microsoft is that people aren't scared to tell 3 ounces of mad gorilla where it can go stuff it. Now can you read this as condoning Microsoft's behaviour? It is a statement of fact, Microsoft gets away with crap. It describes how pretty accurately. Microsoft has a strong enough monopoly that they can afford (at least for a bit) to not care about consumer opinions. It doesn't say it is right. It doesn't say it is good. And then he goes and recommends that you go with free software if you can. This means what about Microsoft? (Incidentally when Karsten announced the thread in the Open Forum, he made it clear what he didn't like. It was the performance of the audits. Not payments.) Cheers, Ben
Post #24,462 by CRConrad 1/15/02 1:59:55 PM Reply	Well, if not "condoning"... Ben: Now ["how", I assume -- CRC] can you read this as condoning Microsoft's behaviour? It is a statement of fact, Microsoft gets away with crap. ...then at least pretty much resigned to it, no? And then he goes and recommends that you go with free software if you can. This means what about Microsoft? Actually, that's not (the main point of) what he says: "Any sane person seeing these licensing terms can only do as Duchene suggests: destroy all copies of Borland software and turn to one of the other proprietary, or better free, products available." Turning to free products is optional, "destroy all copies of Borland software" is not. Funny... Care to explain how those terms in a NEW license are supposed to affect my use of, say, my copy of Delphi 5? I should rush out and "destroy all copies" of that, too?!? (Incidentally when Karsten announced the thread in the Open Forum, he made it clear what he didn't like. It was the performance of the audits. Not payments.) Thanks ever so much for assuming, _again_, I didn't know that. Too bad that forum doesn't have quite the same number of readers as the Reg, eh? Now take back that fucking "come back to rationality" insult before I talk to you again. Christian R. Conrad The Man Who Knows Fucking Everything
Post #24,481 by kmself 1/15/02 3:32:48 PM Reply	Re: Well, if not "condoning"... Now ["how", I assume -- CRC] can you read this as condoning Microsoft's behaviour? It is a statement of fact, Microsoft gets away with crap ....then at least pretty much resigned to it, no? Not resigned. I don't use Microsoft software. I know those who do. In general, on the market, Microsoft can get away with its actions (or has historically). As Ben said, statement of fact. And then he goes and recommends that you go with free software if you can. This means what about Microsoft? Actually, that's not (the main point of) what he says: [Karsten:] "Any sane person seeing these licensing terms can only do as Duchene suggests: destroy all copies of Borland software and turn to one of the other proprietary, or better free, products available." Turning to free products is optional, "destroy all copies of Borland software" is not. It's an and. If you're referring to my intent, both actions are recommended. Funny... Care to explain how those terms in a NEW license are supposed to affect my use of, say, my copy of Delphi 5? I should rush out and "destroy all copies" of that, too?!? Mindshare, Christian. Mindshare. Make it clear that Borland's risking not only future sales but current base. Now take back that fucking "come back to rationality" insult before I talk to you again. Grow up, Christian. `-- Karsten M. Self [link\|mailto:kmself@ix.netcom.com\|kmself@ix.netcom.com] [link\|http://kmself.ix.netcom.com/\|[link\|http://kmself.ix.netcom.com/\|http://kmself.ix.netcom.com/]] What part of "gestalt" don't you understand?`
Post #24,490 by CRConrad 1/15/02 4:49:41 PM Reply	Butt out of my words with Ben, mmmkay, K? Karsten: [Quoting Ben, then me (quoting Karsten):] And then he goes and recommends that you go with free software if you can. This means what about Microsoft? Actually, that's not (the main point of) what he says: [Karsten:] "Any sane person seeing these licensing terms can only do as Duchene suggests: destroy all copies of Borland software and turn to one of the other proprietary, or better free, products available." Turning to free products is optional, "destroy all copies of Borland software" is not. It's an and. Yeah -- it's an "and", the first term of which is "destroy all copies of Borland software" without any option, and the second term of which is either "[turn to] other proprietary [products]", or "better [turn to] free, products". So how, exactly, was your observation that "it's an 'and'" supposed to logically prove that you didn't, in fact, say exactly what I said you did?!? If you're referring to my intent, both actions are recommended. Only, one is optionally recommended and the other unconditionally recommended. And if it wasn't your intent to say that, then you fucking well shouldn't have written precisely that. Don't try to blame me for your inability to say what you (now claim you) intended to say -- 't'would be more appropriate for you to say "Thank you for the lesson, master. I shall endeavour to do better in the future", than to try and kibitz about the objective fact that you said what you actually _said_, be that what you meant or not. Now take back that fucking "come back to rationality" insult before I talk to you again. Grow up, Christian. Shut up, Karsten. Christian R. Conrad The Man Who Knows Fucking Everything
Post #24,516 by ben_tilly 1/15/02 6:53:43 PM Reply	No Now take back that fucking "come back to rationality" insult before I talk to you again. I cannot be expected to take it back while I still believe it. If Borland wants to demand insanely broad audit powers, that is simply not acceptable and it is not rational to defend that action. Now hopefully this is a temporary lapse, some lawyer fucked up royally, Borland will recognize the seriousness of their error, they will back off and go back to being a good citizen. Every company has idiots, and lawyers tend to be extremely prone to that failing. But (as I said initially) as long as they pursue their current path, they deserve to be roundly criticized for it. Cheers, Ben

Welcome to IWETHEY!