Linux desktop lacks innovation
arwynh+ubuntu at gmail.com
Tue Nov 20 04:54:54 GMT 2007
On 20/11/2007, Liam Proven <lproven at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 19, 2007 7:16 PM, Carsten Agger <agger at c.dk> wrote:
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > Hash: SHA1
> > Liam Proven wrote:
> > >> The only "source code" ever brought forward as documentation were
> > >> unprotectable header files. So, someone who can write a statement as
> > >> the above must be either ignorant or deliberately misleading.
> > >
> > > Do you actually understand the paragraph that I wrote? May I suggest
> > > that you re-read it to yourself a few times, slowly.
> > >
> > What I *do* understand is that your phrasing suggests that since the
> > resolution was not that Linux did not contain infringing code, then
> > actually it did ... and nobody has ever published any fact to suggest
> > that such infringing code ever existed in the Linux kernel, which is not
> > what your paragraph hints; i.e., your paragraph crafted to be
> > deliberately misleading.
> Thanks for the clarification. You confirm what I suspected: that you
> did not, in fact, understand the sentence.
> I do not imply anything of the kind. It was not my intention to do so,
> there was no hidden subtext or anything else.
I agree with Carsten, the implication was there, whether you intended it to
be or not.
You are trying to "read between the lines" and you are making it up:
> reading things which are not there.
But they are! English is a fascinating language. There are so many ways to
say the same thing, while implying different things. "Reading between the
lines" is, whether you like it or not, part of reading in the English
language, just as "writing between the lines" is part of writing in it. But
you are a writer, so you should know these things already, right?
Go look for some of my other articles. I am an enthusiastic and
> evangelistic Linux and FOSS user and have been for a decade. I have no
> sympathies or Microsoft affiliations whatsoever, and I really
> seriously and deeply resent and object to you trying to put words into
> my mouth.
> In fact, I would like an apology.
Oh please! Instead of puffing up like a puffer fish, throwing your
credentials about and demanding an apology for someone pointing out an error
on your part, how about admiting your error, learning from it and
appologising for the misunderstanding? We are all human, we all make
mistakes. It's nothing to be embarrassed about.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the sounder