Linux-Advocacy Digest #485, Volume #28 Fri, 18 Aug 00 16:13:07 EDT
Contents:
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard says Linux
growth stagnating ("Christopher Smith")
Anti-Linux/Pro-Microsoft Propaganda Campaign In Usenet (was: COMNA's favorite
conspiracy theorist rides again... (Mark S. Bilk)
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard says Linux
growth stagnating (Stephen S. Edwards II)
Re: FAQ for c.o.m.n.a Now Available! ("Robert Moir")
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating (Stephen S. Edwards II)
Re: Tholen digest, volume 2451775.w590d^-.000000000000000000001 ("Joe Malloy")
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard says Linux
growth stagnating (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: Anti-Linux/Pro-Microsoft Propaganda Campaign In Usenet (was: COMNA's favorite
conspiracy theorist rides again... ("Christopher Smith")
Re: Linus says Mindcraft was accurate (Stephen S. Edwards II)
Re: FAQ for c.o.m.n.a Now Available! (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard says
Linux growth stagnating
Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2000 05:57:43 +1000
"Nathaniel Jay Lee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> spoke thusly:
> >
> >"Nathaniel Jay Lee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> >>
> >> Hey, I'm not trying to discredit MS in this venture, I'm
> >> trying (and apparently succeeding) in discreditting you.
> >
> >hardly!
> >
> >> You say you have, without any qualifications, 'no
> >> incentives' for promoting MS, then you say you have
> >> financial gains to be made because your business succeeds
> >> based on MS products. That is what we humans call a
> >> 'contradiction'.
> >
> [snip]
> >
> >So, you can try to twist it as much as you'd like but the fact remains
that
> >I am not in any way "forced" by MS to say anything (good or bad) about
them.
> >I do so cause I wanna...
>
> I'm not trying to twist anything. You stated two things
> that were a direct contradiction to eachother. Now,
> *maybe* that's not what you meant by those two statements,
> but they did contradict eachother. And BTW, I never said
> *you* were forced to use MS products. You said you have
> no financial incentive for backing up MS products, then
> you said you did a few sentences later. That's all I
> pointed out.
IMHO your logic is flawed, because his statement can support both points of
view.
If he is selling a service (say, webservers) that just happen to use a
certain OS (in this case, Windows) then he is making money off the service,
not the product. Hence he has no financial incentive to push the product,
since his income comes from the service.
Essentially, there is no contradiction, depending on your interpretation.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark S. Bilk)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Anti-Linux/Pro-Microsoft Propaganda Campaign In Usenet (was: COMNA's favorite
conspiracy theorist rides again...
Date: 18 Aug 2000 19:47:47 GMT
In article <8njkmq$7mp$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Stephen S. Edwards II <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark S. Bilk) wrote
>>Stephen S. Edwards II <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark S. Bilk) wrote
>>>>Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>>The KDE people do not seem to be taking this lying down. There is
>>>>>probably going to be an all-out war soon. The days of peaceful
>>>>>cooperation between KDE and GNOME are probably over.
>>>>Erik Funkenbusch has a long history as a pro-Microsoft
>>>>anti-Linux propagandist.
>>>Ah, it's COMNA's favorite conspiracy theorist.
>>>Tell me Mark, is Erik getting paid more than me?
>>>Because if he is, then that's the last straw!
>>It isn't "conspiracy theory" to point out that some people
>>have been spreading FUD and outright lies against Linux
>>and in favor of Microsoft in Usenet and elsewhere. These
>>include both Erik Funkenbusch and Stephen Edwards.
>Oh, of course. Yet, you have never once pointed out when
>I posted these alleged lies. To you, a lie is merely
>something you disagree with.
Wrong. I posted these quotes of Edwards' lies on July 3, 1999.
"Linux seems to exist these days for the sole purpose
of being an anti-Microsoft propaganda tool, rather than
... an alternative to commercial software"
"[Linus Torvalds] has turned into an obnoxious "cult leader"
of a sort"
"Most of the posts I've read coming out of c.o.l.a. are
very confrontational, and snide, concerning Windows users"
These are all attempts to convey false and disparaging
disinformation -- lies -- to the reader about Linux and its
adherents. The inclusion of a small amount of vagueness
by using words like "seems" and "of a sort" does not change
that effect.
>>Funkenbusch provided a moment of hilarity when he opined
>>that Microsoft left its bogus error message in a Windows
>>beta, warning users not to use DR-DOS because... they just
>>forgot to remove it! Couldn't have been that they were
>>spreading lies about a competitor's product in order to
>>kill it.
>You mean you're still making a lot of piss over
>the days of __DOS__?!
The point is that Funkenbusch has devoted a lot of energy
in the last six months to justifying and excusing Microsoft's
DR-DOS-killer message, and some of its other deceptive and
coercive acts.
>What the hell is your
>problem? Don't you have a life of any kind?!
>Jesus H. Christ Mark. That was then. This is
>now. Get over it already. This is the year
>2000.
Edwards' usual personal attacks.
>Yes, Microsoft has done some underhanded
>things. Just as have every single other large
>corporation.
But Microsoft has done a lot more of it than most companies,
enough to seriously distort the market by creating barriers
against its competitors' sales that have nothing to do with
the relative merits of the products.
>If you weren't such a brainless
>dope-smoking hippie, you'd realize that.
>What, do you still hold vendettas against kids
>that pushed you over in the sandbox in 3rd grade
>as well?
Edwards' usual nasty personal attacks.
>>And Edwards has crapped up the c.o.l.a newsgroup with many
>>thousands of nasty, pointless, and in some cases lying
>>articles against Linux (mostly last year), and has given
>>as his reason simply that he had nothing better to do with
>>his time.
>*LOL!@#*
>
>The only time I post to COLA is when some kooky little
>worm like you posts his or her wankish viewpoints.
Edwards posted about 500 articles per month to c.o.l.a
last year. Readers can judge for themselves in DejaNews
whether these were all in response to "kooky little worms
wanking".
>>The reason I replied here to Funkenbusch, and mentioned that
>>he's a long-time anti-Linux/pro-Microsoft propagandist, is
>>that he's spreading lies about the KDE and Gnome development
>>teams, and this would make people hesitate to use Linux, so
>>they'd stay with Microsoft.
>>
>>He's trying to get readers to take his word for what he's
>>saying, without any evidence whatsoever. I pointed out
>>that his history shows that he obviously has an axe to
>>grind (whether Microsoft is paying him or not), and so
>>his opinion is *not trustworthy*.
>>
>>Here's a list of most of the anti-Linux propagandists:
>>
>>Drestin Black, Chad Myers, Erik Funkenbusch, Stephen Edwards,
>>Chad Mulligan/boobaabaa, Jeff Szarka, Robert Moir, Brent Davies,
>>Steve Sheldon, Boris, ubercat/Odin, Xerophyte/Kelly_Robinson,
>>Pete Goodwin, [EMAIL PROTECTED](newsguy.com),
>>Cuor di Mela, etc.
>Ooh! The list! How incredibly clever!
Its purpose is to warn new readers of c.o.l.a that these
individuals have engaged in a concerted lying propaganda
campaign against Linux, frequently amounting to thousands
of posts per month among them. Bringing this to readers'
attention lessens the effect of the propaganda.
>Well, if I ever get a letter bomb in the mail,
>and I survive the blast, I'll know who to blame.
I've never made threats to anyone, whereas "Chad Myers"
admitted publicly to making a threatening phone call to me.
>Mark, you are even more pathetic than Derek Currie.
>I can't believe that you actually keep track of all
>of those names. You clearly have way too much time
>on your hands.
It only takes a few seconds to add a name to the list.
What takes time is slogging through all the propaganda
they post here.
>Tell you what. Why don't you stop mooching off of
>Mom and Dad, and go out and get yourself a job. If
>you're going to run an underground anti-conspiracy
>network, you really shouldn't make your parents pay
>for it.
Edwards' usual nasty personal attacks.
>>Plus these names, which are all used by one person!
>>
>>Steve/Mike/Simon/teknite/keymaster/keys88/"S"/Sponge/Syphon/
>>"Sewer Rat"/Sarek/steveno/scummer/McSwain/Swango/piddy/
>>pickle_pete/wazzoo/"leg log"/mike_hunt/Heather/Amy/claire_lynn/
>>susie_wong/Ishmeal_hafizi/"Saul Goldblatt"/Proculous/
>>Tiberious/Jerry_Butler/"Tim Palmer"/BklynBoy/bison/Wobbles/
>>screwbilk/deadpenguin/"%^$&&&&&&&&&&&&@!!!!!!!!!!!!!.com"/
>>The Cat (hepcat)[EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)/etc.
>Assuming that you're correct (which you might be),
>I'm certain that you've done exactly as they were
>hoping... provide them with hours of entertainment
>in watching you scream and bellyache like an idiot.
Which I don't. But I don't care what Steve/Mike thinks of
my posts. My purpose is to help warn new readers of the
newsgroup that they're being lied to in a big way by him
and the others listed.
>>The rest of Stephen Edwards' article is his usual sneering
>>crap.
>I only sneer at you, Mark. It's just because
>you're such a raging twit, that I simply cannot
>resist dangling my taunts in front of you.
Wrong. He's posted similar nasty personal attacks against
others who've talked about the ongoing anti-Linux propaganda.
For myself, I take it as an indication that my posts (which
have been very infrequent compared to Edwards') are effective
against the propaganda, or at least that Edwards fears they
are.
>Folks, even Mark's own fellow COLA inhabitants
>have written him off as a looney.
Wrong. Only one or two called it "conspiracy theory". But
even they now sometimes use some of the same terminology
that I do about the same propagandists. Others have some-
times quoted the lists.
This isn't rocket science. All anyone has to do is check
DejaNews for posts by the listed individuals. Their
consistent anti-Linux/pro-Microsoft bias, often reaching
the level of blatant lying, and their very large number
of posts, is extremely obvious.
>However, Mark
>has brought up something that has raised several
>questions in me... he claims that I am getting
>paid by Microsoft to push WindowsNT onto everyone.
I've said I suspect that some of the propaganda spammers
are getting paid in some way by Microsoft, given the amount
of time and effort they've expended in posting 500 or more
articles per month each, plus the fact that some of their
stuff reads like Microsoft press releases or damage control
spin-doctoring.
The following report from the L.A. Times shows that Micro-
soft's involvement in the anti-Linux propaganda campaign
in Usenet and other media is well within the realm of
possibility:
Stealth Blitz
http://lists.essential.org/1998/am-info/msg01526.html
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Stephen S. Edwards II)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard says
Linux growth stagnating
Date: 18 Aug 2000 19:48:27 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nathaniel Jay Lee) wrote in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Stephen S. Edwards II <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> spoke thusly:
>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in <8njvlo$q8p$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>
>>8<SNIP>8
>>
>>>> Yep, Linux does provide a good path to powerful OSes like AIX.
>>>
>>>Actually, I was thinking along the lines of going to a more powerful
>>>equipment on the same family of hardware if that cannot help you can
>>>move from a microcomputer running Linux to a minicomputer running Linux
>>>or even to a mainframe running Linux. That is something that cannot be
>>>done with Windows NT. My posting was a little joke that was also
>>>intended to highlight that major difference.
>>
>>What sort of proof do you have that WindowsNT could
>>not be adapted to run on many different classes of
>>hardware?
>>
>>No, _WE_ can't do it, because it's closed source,
>>but that doesn't mean that it empirically cannot
>>be done.
>
>I keep wondering about this line of reasoning. Linux
>'DOES' run on all the classes of hardware mentioned,
>Windows NT, at the moment, 'DOES NOT' run on all the
>classes of hardware mentioned. We (the Linux advocates)
>see that as a situation of 'what can we reasonable expect
>from the platform'. It appears that Windows advocates see
Fair enough. I have no qualms about that.
>that as, "What is the possibility that the platform cannot
>be changed in the future?" While both arguments hold some
>logic, we are talking about what *is* against what *could
>be*, and as such, it is two different discussions.
That isn't too far from my point either. mjcr
seems to be portraying "does not" to mean "cannot".
I know that "could be" != "is". I never stated
otherwise.
>We don't have proof that it *can't* be done, but we do
>have proof that it 'hasn't yet' been done. When it is
>done, we won't bring it up. But until then, I don't think
>it is reasonable to expect us to accept that *is* against
>the *could be* argument. Sound reasonable?
Absolutely. The only problem I have with mjcr's
statements is that he sounds as if he is implying
that it is "impossible" for WindowsNT to run on
such hardware. It's not. It's just not practical
for Microsoft to port it to such hardware.
"Cannot" and "does not" mean two differnt things.
--
.-----.
|[_] | Stephen S. Edwards II | http://www.primenet.com/~rakmount/
| = :| -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
| -| "Even though you can't see the details, you can sense them.
| | And that is what makes great computer graphics."
|_..._| -- Robert Abel of Abel Image Research
------------------------------
From: "Robert Moir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: FAQ for c.o.m.n.a Now Available!
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2000 20:49:40 +0100
"Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8njvtv$4pu$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Mike Byrns" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8njv6p$lg9$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
snip
> > >
> > > Seeeeeeeee, he DID run away
> > >
> > > He Did!
> > >
> > > He Did run away.
I'm still here. Just not wasting my time with you. You are a waste of
space, a disgrace to your profession, both the one you claim and the
kindergarden student you act like, and certainly a liability rather than an
asset to the 'Linux community's' more intelligent advocates.
> > What cartoon character does that sound like to you folks?
>
> One that doesn't deserve to be sullied by such a comparison.
How about Scrappy Do? He dragged those around him down too.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Stephen S. Edwards II)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating
Date: 18 Aug 2000 19:55:06 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió:
> > It seems to be the central issue, I think. If it is simply a matter
> > of one Usenet poster showing or failing to show respect for another
> > Usenet poster, I'd suggest it has nothing to do with the Linux
> > community. Though I must admit that Usenet is a much stronger part
> > of the Linux community than most other communities.
>
> It is more so a problem when the person showing a lack of basic
> respect for the long time users of Linux is a member of a official
> development team of a well know project like Roberto is for the KDE
> development team.
How has Roberto shown a lack of basic respect for
the Linux community? He's helping them by helping
to build a codebase for an interface that they might
find useful.
> He seems to
> discount the concerns of the very user base that have assisted
> building OS into a platform that makes his project possible.
Huh? Just because he thinks that GNOME isn't
the bees knees, and that anyone who does, doesn't
know what their missing with KDE?
Of course he's going to be biased... he's a part
of the KDE project. It's unfair to expect him
to be anything otherwise.
And why should he care what the masses of Linux
users think of KDE, as long as he enjoys what
he is doing? He's doing them a favor, not the
other way around.
--
.-----.
|[_] | Stephen S. Edwards II | http://www.primenet.com/~rakmount/
| = :| -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
| -| "Even though you can't see the details, you can sense them.
| | And that is what makes great computer graphics."
|_..._| -- Robert Abel of Abel Image Research
------------------------------
From: "Joe Malloy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Tholen digest, volume 2451775.w590d^-.000000000000000000001
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2000 19:55:21 GMT
Here's today's Tholen digest. Notice how he's ignored the evidence
for the fact that he likes to "hear" himself, as well as the
evidence for his reading comprehension problem.
Tholen sez:
15822 >I've already replied to the articles you've posted with lies and
15822 >misinformation.
Ah, the good ole' days! Thanks for reading!
--
"USB, idiot, stands for Universal Serial Bus. There is no power on the
output socket of any USB port I have ever seen" - Bob Germer
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard says
Linux growth stagnating
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2000 19:52:48 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> spoke thusly:
>
>"Nathaniel Jay Lee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> spoke thusly:
>> >
>> >"Nathaniel Jay Lee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >
>> >>
>> >> Hey, I'm not trying to discredit MS in this venture, I'm
>> >> trying (and apparently succeeding) in discreditting you.
>> >
>> >hardly!
>> >
>> >> You say you have, without any qualifications, 'no
>> >> incentives' for promoting MS, then you say you have
>> >> financial gains to be made because your business succeeds
>> >> based on MS products. That is what we humans call a
>> >> 'contradiction'.
>> >
>> [snip]
>> >
>> >So, you can try to twist it as much as you'd like but the fact remains
>that
>> >I am not in any way "forced" by MS to say anything (good or bad) about
>them.
>> >I do so cause I wanna...
>>
>> I'm not trying to twist anything. You stated two things
>> that were a direct contradiction to eachother. Now,
>> *maybe* that's not what you meant by those two statements,
>> but they did contradict eachother. And BTW, I never said
>> *you* were forced to use MS products. You said you have
>> no financial incentive for backing up MS products, then
>> you said you did a few sentences later. That's all I
>> pointed out.
>
>IMHO your logic is flawed, because his statement can support both points of
>view.
>
>If he is selling a service (say, webservers) that just happen to use a
>certain OS (in this case, Windows) then he is making money off the service,
>not the product. Hence he has no financial incentive to push the product,
>since his income comes from the service.
>
>Essentially, there is no contradiction, depending on your interpretation.
In my opinion, if it *can* be interpreted as a
contradiction, it is. Call me a hard ass :-).
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anti-Linux/Pro-Microsoft Propaganda Campaign In Usenet (was: COMNA's
favorite conspiracy theorist rides again...
Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2000 06:10:15 +1000
"Mark S. Bilk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8nk3t3$e03$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <8njkmq$7mp$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Stephen S. Edwards II <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark S. Bilk) wrote
> >>Stephen S. Edwards II <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark S. Bilk) wrote
> >>>>Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>>>>The KDE people do not seem to be taking this lying down. There is
> >>>>>probably going to be an all-out war soon. The days of peaceful
> >>>>>cooperation between KDE and GNOME are probably over.
>
> >>>>Erik Funkenbusch has a long history as a pro-Microsoft
> >>>>anti-Linux propagandist.
>
> >>>Ah, it's COMNA's favorite conspiracy theorist.
> >>>Tell me Mark, is Erik getting paid more than me?
> >>>Because if he is, then that's the last straw!
>
> >>It isn't "conspiracy theory" to point out that some people
> >>have been spreading FUD and outright lies against Linux
> >>and in favor of Microsoft in Usenet and elsewhere. These
> >>include both Erik Funkenbusch and Stephen Edwards.
>
> >Oh, of course. Yet, you have never once pointed out when
> >I posted these alleged lies. To you, a lie is merely
> >something you disagree with.
>
> Wrong. I posted these quotes of Edwards' lies on July 3, 1999.
>
> "Linux seems to exist these days for the sole purpose
> of being an anti-Microsoft propaganda tool, rather than
> ... an alternative to commercial software"
>
> "[Linus Torvalds] has turned into an obnoxious "cult leader"
> of a sort"
>
> "Most of the posts I've read coming out of c.o.l.a. are
> very confrontational, and snide, concerning Windows users"
>
> These are all attempts to convey false and disparaging
> disinformation -- lies -- to the reader about Linux and its
> adherents. The inclusion of a small amount of vagueness
> by using words like "seems" and "of a sort" does not change
> that effect.
They are opinions. Logically, they cannot be lies.
> >>Funkenbusch provided a moment of hilarity when he opined
> >>that Microsoft left its bogus error message in a Windows
> >>beta, warning users not to use DR-DOS because... they just
> >>forgot to remove it! Couldn't have been that they were
> >>spreading lies about a competitor's product in order to
> >>kill it.
>
> >You mean you're still making a lot of piss over
> >the days of __DOS__?!
>
> The point is that Funkenbusch has devoted a lot of energy
> in the last six months to justifying and excusing Microsoft's
> DR-DOS-killer message, and some of its other deceptive and
> coercive acts.
There wasn't a "killer message". There was a *non-fatal error message* in
the _beta_ displayed when non-MS versions of DOS were being run.
[chomp. *yawn*]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Stephen S. Edwards II)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linus says Mindcraft was accurate
Date: 18 Aug 2000 19:34:32 GMT
[cross-posted to comp.os.linux.advocacy
as a point of possible interest]
>From an interview in the Wall Street Journal:
>
>http://interactive.wsj.com/public/current/articles/SB966551209980435711.h
>tm
>
>What's more, Microsoft last year began to take notice of Linux. In the
>spring, for example, it released a study showing that Windows NT
>outperformed Linux in some common computing tasks.
>
>The study caused an uproar in the Linux camp, with Mr. Torvalds and
>others suggesting at the time that they had somehow been rigged.
>
>Subsequent tests, though, showed Microsoft was right, and in his
>interview, Mr. Torvalds conceded that he initially had been "in denial"
>on the matter.
>
>"We had been arrogant," he said, adding it was painful for him to admit
>that Windows was better than Linux, at least in the areas covered by the
>Microsoft test.
I don't even think "better" is a proper term, because
"better" is subjective. I think "performed faster"
is adequate, and it helps alleviate the whole
"penis comparison" that benchmarks tend to degrade
into.
I think that this clearly makes Linus the better
man, as it's not easy for anyone to admit when
they were incorrect, especially when they have
a lot of admiration and integrity on the line.
Such humility is quite deserving of grand respect, IMHO.
It was this kind of attitude that I respected Linus for
in the past.
I think what people need to understand, is that these
different operating systems will never ever be the one
true OS. Just use what suits you, and suggest to others
that they might like what you like, but if they don't
then leave them alone. And if they find reason to
list a bunch of convoluted reasons why "your choice
sucks", then most likely, they'll be full of crap,
and you can pick them apart, and make them into
fools at your leisure.
I think it's perfectly acceptable to state that you
don't like a certain software product, or OS, and
leave it at that, but I think it's childish for
someone to go out of their way to explain why
something is empiracally inferior, just so that
they can feel better about themselves.
>Now, will the linux apologists finally admit they were wrong?
They don't even have to do that, IMHO. I would've
just liked to have heard them say "gee, that's
interesting. I'd like to verify that, and if it's
true, find out why it turned out that way."
--
.-----.
|[_] | Stephen S. Edwards II | http://www.primenet.com/~rakmount/
| = :| -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
| -| "Even though you can't see the details, you can sense them.
| | And that is what makes great computer graphics."
|_..._| -- Robert Abel of Abel Image Research
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: FAQ for c.o.m.n.a Now Available!
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2000 19:57:48 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> spoke thusly:
>Nathaniel Jay Lee wrote:
>>
>> Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> spoke thusly:
>> >Robert Moir wrote:
>> >>
>> >> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> > > Nope. Its me realising its not worth my time attempting to talk to you.
>> >> I
>> >> > > notice you don't even bother answering the rest of my post. Can I
>> >> assume,
>> >> > > then, that you are conceding the point about the value, or lack of it,
>> >> in
>> >> > > your posts?
>> >> >
>> >> > I concede that you are running away.
>> >>
>> >> And I concede that you appear to be either dull witted or trolling. *plonk*
>> >
>> >Seeeeeeeee, he DID run away
>> >
>> >He Did!
>> >
>> >He Did run away.
>
>You're unfamiliar with Tweety and Sylvester, aren't you....
I'm extremely familiar with them. I love looney tunes.
But I fail to see the humor in acting childish (and I'm
sorry, but the above seems extremely childish to me).
>
>
>> >
>>
>> And that would be the childish behavior I've mentioned
>> before. I'm assuming we will soon see a new addition to
>> your sig including some idiotic thing said in this thread?
>>
>> --
>>
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Nathaniel Jay Lee
>
>
>--
>Aaron R. Kulkis
>Unix Systems Engineer
>ICQ # 3056642
>
>I: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
> premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
> you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
> you are lazy, stupid people"
>
>J: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
> challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
> between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
> Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
>
>A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
>
>B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
>
>C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
> sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
> that she doesn't like.
>
>D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
>
>E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
> ...despite (D) above.
>
>F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
> response until their behavior improves.
>
>G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
> adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
>
>H: Knackos...you're a retard.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list (and comp.os.linux.advocacy) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
