Linux-Advocacy Digest #152, Volume #29 Sun, 17 Sep 00 02:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: How low can they go...? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: How low can they go...? (Mike Byrns)
Re: How low can they go...? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: How low can they go...? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Sherman Act vaguery [was: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?] (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Sherman Act vaguery [was: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?] (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 01:34:38 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Mike Byrns in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>Jonathan Revusky wrote:
>
>> "T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>> >
>> > Said Seán Ó Donnchadha in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> > >Jonathan Revusky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > [...]
>> > >Good day to you too, Jonathan!
>> >
>> > So, Jerry, why is it you post using 'Seán Ó Donnchadha', instead of as
>> > Jerry Shekhel, which Jonathan Revusky says is your real name?
>>
>> Hi Max.
>>
>> I thought Jerry Shekhel should have the opportunity to answer you. Not
>> surprisingly, your question was met by the deafening roar of silence.
>> Now, my response to Shekhel contains a lot of... inside humor... and I
>> thought you and the other linux advocacy participants deserve to know
>> what it was about. Besides, linux advocates and java advocates are
>> natural allies, if only on the pragmatic principle that your enemy's
>> enemy is your friend. Greetings, friends!
>>
>> First of all, I should say that if you are accessing this thread via
>> .linux.advocacy and don't normally read .java.advoacy, then you don't
>> know what you're missing! Over the past year and a bit, we on clja have
>> been having oodles of fun with some of these anonymous FUDster assholes.
>> More fun than -- dare I use the expression -- a barrel of monkeys! :-)
>>
>> The fun with this particular Jerry Shekhel character began when yours
>> truly realized the stylistic similarities between the writing of Seán Ó
>> Donnchadha and one Jerry Coffey, who had been around some months before,
>> spreading very similar kinds of anti-Java FUD. I posted some devastating
>> evidence that the two were in fact 2 fake identities used by the same
>> anonymous FUDster. Somebody else, Grant Fischer, did some other archive
>> searches that showed that the real name of said FUDster was Jerry
>> Shekhel.
>>
>> When things got uncovered, Shekhel tried to lie his way out of the
>> situation in the most comical ways. He went on record as claiming that
>> Seán Ó Donnnchadha was his real name, that Jerry Coffey was a personal
>> friend of his with whom he lost contact, because "Jerry Coffey went out
>> west". He claimed that he had never hear the name "Jerry Shekhel"
>> before, though as it later turned out, Jerry Shekhel turned out to be
>> the man's real name!
>>
>> Shekhel did not exactly "go quietly". Things came to a denouement
>> finally, earlier this year, when in an attempt to counterattack, Jerry
>> Shekhel initiated a thread entitled "Explain your continued lies,
>> Revusky". The whole thing is really amusing. It all ended up with Jerry
>> Shekhel having to fess up, since he saw the clear danger that this was
>> going to impact his "real" life.
>
>Christ folks. This is usenet. It's ***NOT*** real life.
*BZZZZZT*. Welcome to the real world. Maybe years ago you might have
gotten by with this kind of bullshit, but this is the Internet, now.
>People do and say things here that are worlds different than what they would do
>face to face.
Thus, the problem.
>The psychology of (perhaps only perceived) anonymity allows posters to free
>themselves of the bonds of reprisal and
>prejudice and speak their mind.
Or tell lies, and hide behind aliases.
>Any talk of "danger" or impact to "real" life just shows that people are have gone
>far overboard and are
>sinking fast.
State your case, or keep your trap shut.
>If you don't like what someone has to say then add them to your killfile. If only it
>were that easy in real life.
It is. You're either honest and back up your statements with reasoning
and integrity, or you're a piece of shit that doesn't deserve to have
your text replicated through Usenet. The days of the bullshit kiddie
games are gone; this *IS* the real world.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: Mike Byrns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 05:37:21 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
> Said Mike Byrns in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
> >
> >> [...]
> >> >I love the way Max is suddenly an expert on "technical design", to the point
> >> >where he starts lecturing experienced developers. Ask him any elementary
> >> >question about OO design if you want a good laugh.
> >>
> >> I am so so so hurt by your pointing out I'm not a programmer.
> >>
> >> I 'suddenly' became an expert in "technical design" starting about
> >> fifteen years ago. It doesn't take knowledge of OO design (and that has
> >> precisely *what* to do with user interfaces?) to know that most
> >> 'experienced developers' have their head up their ass when it comes to
> >> building a practical and efficient user interface. Save your ridicule
> >> for someone who gives a damn.
> >
> >Being such an "expert" in "technical design" for so long I'd have to assume that you
> >can post some ISBN number of the books you've written or contributed to or perhaps a
> >few URLs where you are cited as an authoritative source. Until you can do that you
> >are no more an expert than Kulkis.
>
> 1) I would have thought you'd at least be smart enough to know that you
> shouldn't make assumptions. It means you're stupid.
But my assumption was correct and by assuming I drew you out. I'll look stupid anyday
to
be effective where intelligence fails.
> 2) I was parroting Donovan Rebbechi's rhetoric; perhaps you didn't
> notice. Then again, perhaps you didn't want to notice, since it makes
> trolling a lot easier.
I fail to see the parroting. Could you show me what you mean? How does simply asking
for your credentials contitute trolling? If I am to trust you experience in UI design
I
should be allowed to research it.
> 3) ISBN: 0830643613 (contributing author); RFC 2271, 2274, 2573, et. al,
> (acknowledgements). Most of my work has been private development for
> ELTRAX's "Enterprise Networking Technologies" curriculum.
So you were involved with the SNMP working group. Great. I was involved in DRUMS.
Neither one have anything to do with UI. Enterprise Networking Technologies don't
appear
to have much to do with it either. Where were you able to squeeze in that 15 years of
UI
design knowledge? I wrote all the design guidelines for my previous employer. No the
ideas were no entirely my own. I used an ala carte method of design patterns I thought
worked seamlessly together in a variety of applications. Things like, don't use
property
sheet UI when the the dialog real estate cannot support it. Avoid scrollbars in all
except frame windows. Use proper indenting for subordinate dialog controls and don't
forget to disable the subordinate controls when appropriate. All kinda things like
that.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 01:44:52 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Seán Ó Donnchadha in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>Jonathan Revusky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>>>
>>> Said Seán Ó Donnchadha in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>>> >Jonathan Revusky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> [...]
>>> >Good day to you too, Jonathan!
>>>
>>> So, Jerry, why is it you post using 'Seán Ó Donnchadha', instead of as
>>> Jerry Shekhel, which Jonathan Revusky says is your real name?
>>
>>Hi Max.
>>
>>I thought Jerry Shekhel should have the opportunity to answer you. Not
>>surprisingly, your question was met by the deafening roar of silence.
>>Now, my response to Shekhel contains a lot of... inside humor... and I
>>thought you and the other linux advocacy participants deserve to know
>>what it was about.
>>
>>[...]
>>
>
>Almost everything Jonathan says here is true. I did something very
>stupid when I was hanging out on the Java advocacy newsgroup. I admit
>it. When Jonathan started accusing me of being a "paid shill", all
>because I expressed my honest opinions about Java and they happened to
>be mostly negative, I kind of flipped out. I wanted to remove all
>doubt of my sincerity, and I stupidly fell into the trap of thinking
>that the end justifies any means. It was a dumb, childish thing to do.
No, not saying that when we first learned you were Jerry Shekhel was a
dumb, childish thing to do. Continuing to post as 'Sean' was a dumb,
childish thing to do. Posting this pretense of innocence *after*
Jonathan gave you an ample opportunity to respond was dumb thing to do.
>So I apologized and left the group. I explained that "Jerry Coffey"
>had been an identity that my ISP accidentally attached to my account,
>and that I had never even considered posting anonymously until that
>happened. Once it did, I kind of liked it, although I didn't like the
>name itself. So when I switched newsreaders, I just kind of made up
>Seán for the heck of it. After I left java.advocacy, I saw no reason
>to change my identity yet again. People who are interested in purely
>technical discussions usually don't care about that kind of thing, and
>people like Jonathan would obviously be able to sniff out my
>"stylistic fingerprints" anyway.
Suffice it to say that I (and I assume anyone else with more than half a
brain) believe you're full of shit, and wouldn't take your word for just
about anything, let alone whether your 'ISP accidentally attached' a
fictitious name to your account.
>>Besides, linux advocates and java advocates are
>>natural allies, if only on the pragmatic principle that your enemy's
>>enemy is your friend. Greetings, friends!
>>
>
>I think it's sad that technical advocacy newsgroups have been reduced
>to this kind of thing. It used to be about the good stuff - the stuff
>that matters to users and developers - and now it's all about the
>poster's motivations.
I think its sad that you expect us to believe this line of bullshit. I
haven't noticed any 'good stuff' from you, 'Sean', just FUD in defense
of crapware. I have only one motive: honesty and clear thinking. Your
preference for holy wars aside, we're not talking technology, here;
we're talking criminal behavior!
>I do miss the technical discussions that used to take place in the
>Java group - safety vs. efficiency, destructors vs. garbage
>collection, MFC vs. Swing, etc. That was fun. A couple of weeks ago I
>took a glance over there to see what's going on, and was simply
>shocked to find out what the main topic of discussion is.
I would presume that you liked spreading FUD. Go post to the
microsoft.* groups; I'm sure you'll find it very 'fun'.
>BTW Jonathan, Max seems to abhor anything that favors the programmer's
>convenience or productivity over the user's. If he actually sides with
>you on this Java/Linux alliance thing, well, I guess I'll be surprised
>again.
That may indeed be the case. As you put it, I'd certainly stand up to
your assertion; I will *always* favor the user's view over the
'programmer's convenience or productivity'. Anyone who doesn't, IMHO,
is a moron.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 01:52:44 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said The Ghost In The Machine in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
[...]
>But you are correct; there are a number of obstacles in the establishment
>of a viable operating system -- the one who gets there first usually
>gets most of the business. Consider that DOS is a variant of CP/M,
>which might be considered the first OS available on a modern PC
>(specifically, the Osborne), as opposed to a console unit such
>as, say, an IBM 4341 or VAX 11/780, which weren't all that portable. :-)
So the one that gets there first....?
[...]
>But Microsoft is not a natural monopoly; it's an artificial one.
>It's clear that the findings of fact suggest that Microsoft did
>some rather nasty things when leveraging DOS to Windows, and Windows 3.1
>to Windows 95. (Installing a browser and deleting the IE icon is
>"damaging an OS"? Bizarre. And how about IE 4 overwriting a large number
>of DLL's in the system area? At least the beta message regarding DRDOS
>makes a bit of sense -- but only a bit.)
>
>To be fair, Unix had no viable offerings in that price range, and
>OS/2, while a good OS, could not capitalize on its successes,
>marketing wise. Apple, Amiga, and Atari were good, but not
>business-oriented (although Apple was the closest). So who else
>but IBM and Microsoft? (And IBM fell behind.)
>
>Does this mean we need to take action against Microsoft, or that
>such action would be effective? At this point, unknown -- at least
>to me.
Well, seeing as 'artificial monopolies' are illegal, I'd say it is
pretty clear, in fact. And the failure of OS/2 to 'capitalize on its
successes, marketing wise', is, in fact, the entirety of the issue, in
retrospect. Neither 'superior product', nor 'business acumen' (despite
the obvious confusion), nor 'accident of history', can excuse a
monopoly; they are most explicitly distinguished from the crime of
monopolization. Microsoft took steps to ensure that OS/2 would not gain
sufficient application support to compete against Windows, a patently
inferior product, promoted through restraint of trade (predatory
licensing for Windows development product from Microsoft not being the
least of it), and prevented from gaining acceptance through FUD.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Sherman Act vaguery [was: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?]
Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 01:55:45 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said 2 + 2 in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>T. Max Devlin wrote in message ...
>>Said 2 + 2 in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> [...]
>>>You know what it means, if you've even known certain people of ill repute,
>>>who mix a little bit of truth in with all their lies, so when they get
>>>challenged on a lie, they have SOMETHING that they have said which is true.
>>>And that is used to refute the lie.
>>
>>I'm afraid you've become confused somehow, based on your chaotic
>>rambling (which I've snipped; suffice it to say it was based heavily on
>>'Alice in Wonderland'.) I certainly understood all of it, but I don't
>>know why you think any of it was valid. I don't engage in lying, and am
>>entirely free of guile or deceit. Its something of a character fault,
>>in fact.
>
>I wasn't accusing you of lying. That was an analogy only.
Sure sounded that way. But I don't hold grudges, so we'll forget all
about it.
>Max, the law uses language with great precision. An important phrase used in
>a particular context has a whole line of cases behind it.
'2 + 2', in case you haven't noticed, I use language with great
precision as well. An phrase has one case behind it, and a whole line
of cases amplifying its importance.
>You can't switch that phrase to a different context. It may be used but a
>different meaning ascribed to it.
You confuse my disagreeing with your interpretation of the phrase with
my disagreeing with the actual meaning of the phrase.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Sherman Act vaguery [was: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?]
Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 02:02:09 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said [EMAIL PROTECTED] in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>The split of Microsoft as proposed by Jackson will save Microsoft.
>That is proven owing to OS/2. When OS/2 was divested, the product
>continued to be supported and in 1999 a kick butt OS/2 server was
>released and in November of 2000 the corresponding kick butt
>OS/2 client is to be released.
>
>Microsoft, not having to support OS/2 anymore
>was able to devote resources to other OS products and to
>applications and OS/2 consumers still benefit from
>the divestature today. There was only good and not a bit
>of consumer or corporate harm caused by the OS/2 divestature.
This might make a bit more sense if there was such a thing as an 'OS/2
divestiture'. What the hell are you talking about?
>Jackson's split is identical to OS/2's only the
>current Microsoft is to divest of all and not just one of its
>operating system products.
Most people understand it as divesting the applications, and retaining
the OS, but I can understand that this is something of a matter of
perspective.
>Microsoft = the application company. The operating system
>company is like OS/2 and IBM.
>
>What 65 million consumers of Win95 can expect from the split
>is decades of meaningfull support of an OS product
>that the current Microsoft will kill in a blaintantly anti-
>consumer forced march to Win2000. The same is true for
>NT workstation (which has at least as many users
>as OS/2, if not more) and the 5+ other operating system
>products sold by Microsoft.
Except the 'blatantly anti-consumer' OS will have to compete with the
'blatantly anti-consumer' applications, which rely on the OS. Thus
providing an opportunity (which the market is aggressively seeking even
as we speak) to compete with both.
>There just is no downside to the Jackson splitup.
That, I have to agree with.
[...]
>This OS/2 experience is likely why Maritz is out at Microsoft.
>Maritz, as reported by Nasdac, was responsible for getting
>Gates to divest OS/2, thereby creating the model Jackson
>followed in his remedy. It is next to impossible to argue that
>Jackson should have had more testimony involving remedies
>after the OS/2 solution had been introduced in his court.
What do you mean by 'the OS/2 solution'?
>http://www.eskimo.com/~mighetto/lsmonop.htm
>in process of update
If you would, kindly, it would be appreciated if you'd put a sig
delimiter (dash-dash-space-newline) prior to your personal web page
link; unless the body of your message relates to the url, it is
inappropriate.
Thanks for your time. Hope it helps.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
