RE: [MLUG] Study: Open source poses security risks (???)

[Jonathan King <EMAIL:PROTECTED>]

On Wed, 12 Jun 2002, Ross, Matt wrote:

> > I really do prefer to use the word (when I use it seriously) only
> > for those who intentionally injure or kill or steal.  And usually
> > only when the injured party, if given a chance, wouldn't do the same
> > thing.  MS has no doubt ruined the commercial prospects of many
> > firms over the years, and they have even employed illegal means to
> > do so in some cases.  I have no interest in them not paying for
> > those illegal acts in some way, but I have no real interest in
> > calling them "evil" just for doing things that would have been (and
> > probably were) done by any of their opponents.
> 
> Just because everybody else is doing it doesn't make it not evil.

No, but I just did spell out a pretty "high" standard of evil.  
Maybe it would be clearer to put it this way: What Microsoft did
does not become morally worse just because they are the billion
dollar corporation with the commanding market position.  I like to 
think of it this way because I really do hate thinking that seeks
to justify misdeeds by pointing out that somebody more powerful does 
the same thing, and the thing they do can't be as bad as what the 
big guy does.

jking


--
To unsubscribe, go to http://mlug.missouri.edu/members/edit.php

Archives are available at http://mlug.missouri.edu/list-archives/