>> You go to a junk yard where they give away parts
>> Now who is at fault that you have no breaks?
In your example, you decided to purchase a car, made from JUNK parts. You
have to accept that the car may be less than perfect. That is part of the
implied deal of building a car from free parts you get at a junk yard.
>> Money was paid for a quality product. That product was not delivered.
That is fraud.
Sorry, it is not. Read the EULA. It's a shame, and a disappointment, but
it is not fraud. But didn't you say you downloaded the software? I'm not
clear on what you paid for.
>> It is just as much fraud and illegal when Microsoft does it as when Red
Hat, SuSE, and Mandrake do it.
>> Now do you understand.
Yes. You want a perfect world. It doesn't exist.
You want a perfect product, but that's NOT what is being sold. The license
agreement says there may be bugs and other defects, and you should test it
to be sure it will work. That is not an unreasonable thing - designing
software to work on any-and-all PCs is almost impossible. Toyota will not
guarantee you that a new car will be perfect, nor will they guarantee it
will make it around any corner at any speed. These are imperfect things in
an imperfect world.
That being said, please note that there are a large number of us who have
install the products, with little-to-no problems. That would suggest that
it is not the fault of the product.
Ken Elliott
=====================
-----Original Message-----
From: slug@nks.net [mailto:slug@nks.net] On Behalf Of SOTL
Sent: Thursday, December 29, 2005 2:35 PM
To: slug@nks.net
Subject: Re: [SLUG] Debian
On Thursday 29 December 2005 10:02 am, Ken Elliott wrote:
> >>BY THE WAY DON"T BITCH THAT YOU PAID CHEAP CHARLIE FOR A COMPLETE
>
> FUNCTIONAL CAR AND DID"T GET ONE.
>
> Perhaps I am misreading your message.... But.... It seems like Charlie
> GAVE you a FREE car, and you don't know how to install a stereo in it,
> and are complaining to Charlie's friends that Charlie should have put
> it in for you. On the surface, it doesn't seem like this approach is a
> good way to get help from Charlie's friends.
>
> Is your point that commercial distos need improvement, and easy
> installation? I agree. I also see that it has greatly improved.
>
Try it this way then.
You go to a junk yard where they give away parts - all good excellent car
parts. There are parts of ever sort such that you can build an infinite
number of different cars. All you have to do is put it together.
Now since you do not have the expertise to do that you walk across the
street to cheap charlie who will procede to go across the street, get the
required parts, return and then build your car. You purchase a car.
Your car is finished, you pick it up and start driving down the street and
suddenly find you have no breaks.
Now who is at fault that you have no breaks? Is it you, the manufacture, the
vendor of the parts to the manufacture? Recall you purchased a car,
completely fully assembled and operational.
The vendor of the parts to the manufacture? How could this be the parts were
given to the manufacture free, as is and without warranty?
Or could it possible be the manufacture who did a very sloppy job of
assemble, did not test critical systems, and did not supply what the client
bought?
See a lot of people here refuse to accept the reality that Red Hat, SuSE, &
Mandrake are selling commercial software and that all three are public
companies with stockholders. It matters not where they got their source of
labor to do the manufacturing; how much they paid the labors, or what the
labor as do. That is all on the manufacture side of the supply equation.
It likewise matters not where the manufacture got it source of raw material
or how much was pad for it. That too is on the supply side [to the
manufacture] equation.
All that matters in a sale of product is that the manufacture offers a
product for sale and that some one purchases it. That is what you do when
you go to a store and buy anything. The store gives you goods; you give the
store money.
Along with that transaction goes two implied guarantees. First the store
demands [and the law too for that matter] that you give the store real
money.
Stores get most pissed when you obtain goods by fraud. The is that the store
[manufacture] gives you a quality product. Passing off inferior goods is
just as much fraud as passing of passing off bad money.
Money was paid for a quality product. That product was not delivered. That
is fraud. It is just as much fraud and illegal when Microsoft does it as
when Red Hat, SuSE, and Mandrake do it.
Now do you understand.
SOTL
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
This list is provided as an unmoderated internet service by Networked
Knowledge Systems (NKS). Views and opinions expressed in messages posted
are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy
or position of NKS or any of its employees.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
This list is provided as an unmoderated internet service by Networked
Knowledge Systems (NKS). Views and opinions expressed in messages
posted are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the
official policy or position of NKS or any of its employees.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 20:24:36 EDT