Then the features weren't "Exclusive to Linux" also Microsoft licensed Unix sourcecode back in the day.
Personally, I don't claim any of the features in Linux are or were exclusive to it. I think arguing such points is pretty useless. Don't accuse me of doing so.
Wow that was moving..not. There is no money in that, a bunch of saps sharing source code..woopty do.
To retort that, I'll quote myself:
Riddle me this, Warrior: why do the most world renowned physicists, theorists and scientists publish their work? So that the world can understand their findings. So that humanity can progress. So people don't have to discover what they've found after it's already been done. This is the idea behind open source. I think it's a phenomenal idea.
What's wrong with wanting computer science to progress at a faster rate in stead of greedily wanting to fill your pocket?
Yea, nice job of dodging the argument. Next time you may want to take some time out of the time you claim to take in writing your SO WELL THOUGHT OUT responses to actually do something.
Warrior: you're accusing me of what you're guilty of. I retorted perfectly fine and precisely relating to your argument. I didn't dodge anything other than you being correct.
Ironic, I remember once upon a time you werent so clear yourself..yet you still left it up to me to interpret. Maybe you're one of those things you hate most right?
Intuitively, I assume that you are talking about the UI when you explicitly refer to the
desktop environment. Sure, it indirectly and non-intuitively entails other sorts of features, but that doesn't mean I should automatically understand what you're talking about.
I don't care about some lame physicst. I'm talking about trade secrets such as hardware specifications which they are not allowed to distribute by law. Hundreds of specifications to drivers is what I'm talking about.
You don't care about some lame physicist? If it wasn't for physicists like Isaac Newton, you wouldn't be at a computer right now. Calculus wouldn't exist; technology would be vastly less advanced. I see no problem in relating the works of physicists and theorists with the work of computer scientists. In fact, I see a direct correlation.
I don't know if I have said this before: Open source is lame, I don't care how phenomenal you think it is, it as no application in the real world, won't make me money, thus it's irrelevant.
It's irrelevant because you don't care about it? That is an absolutely, completely, amazingly unwise, unjustified and blind statement. Saying there is no use for open source is like saying you wish that you couldn't learn anything in school through the work of others.
I'd like to see them do better. Never mind they are busy being Open source and coding for the greater whatever it is you guys call that dumb shit you do anyhow.
Actually, coding for the greater good (open source) takes vast amounts of time less than it does to code for a corporate cause. When you're coding for money, you have to take security measures. You have to obfuscate your libraries, spend vast amounts of time coding and implement validation and verification procedures and implementing other features to make sure users are legally obtaining your software. When you code open source, you don't care about any of that! You upload the source and let the users do what they want with it. Also, if you'd like to see them do better, perhaps you should try Linux again. They already have.
Okay I hate to treat you like an idiot since you're smart but I'm going to have to.
Windows (Microsoft's OS)
says (Meaning claims or speaks)
things as revolutionary (The big word you went through the trouble of looking up)
which apply to (Meaning are relevant to)
Windows (Microsoft's OS)
thus it is perfectly logical (It makes sense)
to call it revolutionary (The big word you went through the trouble of looking up)
Get it?
No, it's not. For the last time, claiming something is revolutionary when it's previously been done is
stupid. As iago said, when you call something revolutionary, you imply that it is new to the world; that it has never, ever been done before in any shape or fashion. The point of a revolution is that it provides some type of new knowledge to the world -- not re-implements knowledge that has already been provided. I'm glad you decided to treat me like an idiot when you're obviously misunderstanding the entire point of this argument. You're simply ignoring the fact that calling something revolutionary implies that it has
never been done before anywhere in the world.
Of COURSE IT is...you just have your head shoved so far up OSS and Torvald's ass you can't see that.
Are you that uninformed? I use Windows as my main desktop environment. As I told unTactical:
Just to make sure this issue is clear: I'm no sort of zealot for any OS. I mainly use Windows on my computer. I recognize that it has its flaws, but I find that they're bearable enough to use over Linux on my main computer. Windows is what I grew up with; it's what I'm used to. For this reason, I'm more comfortable using Windows on my main computer than Linux. However, I have a remarkable level of respect for Linux and what it can do. For this reason, my server (and my other hard drive on my main computer) has Linux on it. 
How is Linux unstable? The uptime for the server I showed you was almost a
year. I've never seen a Windows box that has functioned for that long.
