Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

An Argument for Why Windows Will Go Open Source

justinkterry.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–75 of 75 posts

Re: An Argument for Why Windows Will Go Open Source

#71

Post by [deleted] »

matz1 wrote: post #70
asfdsfggtfd wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> not quibble over trivialities and semantics I recommend just using the definitions of things correctly then :) much easier that trying to persuade other people that the definition does not exist. When cooking I use the kilogram as defined by the SI system - I don't use some other random mass that I call a kilogram. Similarly with software legalities. I also just use the standard terminology so other people e.g. my…

Correct or not is relative, its a matter of which definition you subscribe to. Using the term Open source as source is available is not just random. Apparently many people including developer use it that way. I think its fault of OSI to use such common words to define something so specific.

[deleted]

Re: An Argument for Why Windows Will Go Open Source

#72

Post by asfdsfggtfd »

matz1 wrote: post #68
asfdsfggtfd wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lots of people get technical language wrong much the time. This is fine. Normally one does not correct heavily because one is polite. When one hears someone starting to spread the mistake one feels a duty to correct to prevent further misinformation. This is tedious but still fine. What is not fine is when the person using the technical language wrong starts explaining that their ignorance is better than other people…

Right or wrong is relative, I agree if you believe its wrong then it should be your duty to correct it, and so does the other people you deemed wrong. For me its not ignorance, I am aware of both definition, I just prefer one better than other.

No it's not ignorance its willful ignorance. There is the actual definition. And then there is your personal definition.

This is like saying that personally you use the definition of kilogram to be 3.5 measures of flour using one of your cups. You would struggle when using other people's recipes and other people would struggle when using yours....

Software licensing is complex enough already. Why not keep it all simpler and use words as they are defined and understood by the lawyers who are the ones who actually have to deal with this side of things? Then us programmers can just write the software.

Re: An Argument for Why Windows Will Go Open Source

#73

Post by matz1 »

asfdsfggtfd wrote: post #72
matz1 wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right or wrong is relative, I agree if you believe its wrong then it should be your duty to correct it, and so does the other people you deemed wrong. For me its not ignorance, I am aware of both definition, I just prefer one better than other.

No it's not ignorance its willful ignorance. There is the actual definition. And then there is your personal definition. This is like saying that personally you use the definition of kilogram to be 3.5 measures of flour using one of your cups. You would struggle when using other people's recipes and other people would struggle when using yours.... Software licensing is complex enough already. Why not keep it all simp…

Who decide that the OSI definition is the actual definition ? Unlike your kilogram example, there are actually plenty of people that use/prefer the simpler definition, sure there will some struggle but that is expected.

That's why they should not use such simple and common words to define complex software licensing.

Re: An Argument for Why Windows Will Go Open Source

#74

Post by asfdsfggtfd »

matz1 wrote: post #70
asfdsfggtfd wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> not quibble over trivialities and semantics I recommend just using the definitions of things correctly then :) much easier that trying to persuade other people that the definition does not exist. When cooking I use the kilogram as defined by the SI system - I don't use some other random mass that I call a kilogram. Similarly with software legalities. I also just use the standard terminology so other people e.g. my…

Correct or not is relative, its a matter of which definition you subscribe to. Using the term Open source as source is available is not just random. Apparently many people including developer use it that way. I think its fault of OSI to use such common words to define something so specific.

I don't understand. Once someone knows that they are using these words wrong. Why would they not only persist but insist that everyone else is wrong? Is this just due to embarrassment or something else?

Re: An Argument for Why Windows Will Go Open Source

#75

Post by matz1 »

asfdsfggtfd wrote: post #74
matz1 wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Correct or not is relative, its a matter of which definition you subscribe to. Using the term Open source as source is available is not just random. Apparently many people including developer use it that way. I think its fault of OSI to use such common words to define something so specific.

I don't understand. Once someone knows that they are using these words wrong. Why would they not only persist but insist that everyone else is wrong? Is this just due to embarrassment or something else?

Right or wrong is relative.
Post reply on HN