Squandering one of the industry's best open source talents
,----[ Quote ] | You, personally, would convince more by going back to the innovation in GNOME | that originally made you one of the most interesting developers on the | planet. I want the old Miguel (and Nat - where has Nat Friedman been?) back, | the one who demo'd Nat's Dashboard with Nat at OSCON. The one who led and | pushed GNOME forward for so many years. | | The one who still has the potential to turn the industry on its head. But not | by being Microsoft's best friend. Nor by being its acrid enemy. | | Rather, Miguel de Icaza can turn the industry on its head by putting his | knowledge of interoperability and open source to work on developing the | next-generation desktop (and not by recreating the "best" of Microsoft on | Linux). It's not worth much to you, Miguel, but I think highly of your | talents. That's why I'd like to ask you to get back to innovation, not the | somewhat futile (meaning, few to no real customers will use it) Microsoft | clone-ware you've been engaged in. `----
,----[ Quote ] | I read the agreement between Xandros and Microsoft, and one of the excluded | products was Mono, so Microsoft promises to not sue Xandros over their | distribution but excluding Mono and a few other products, i.e. they reserve | the right to sue over Mono. I wonder if this is an interesting preview of on | what basis they want to fight the free world. | | Interestingly, the Novell deal seems to be different, Mono is not excluded | from the Novell deal. So Microsoft seems to be promising not to sue Novell | over Mono, but keeps the option open for Xandros. Weird but true. `----
,----[ Quote ] | is Mono's role in the deal that of a hook to make customers write | .NET applications because they can be run on Linux - only to find | later on that they are armless or legless because of a change in | the .NETspecifications, a change which Microsoft decides not to | make public? | | [...] | | And here we have an individual who decides to replicate one of | the proprietary company's development environments - for reasons | best known to him alone - and keeps telling people that the reason | he's doing it is so that he can pull people over from the | proprietary company's side to his side!!! `----
Roy Schestowitz wrote: > Squandering one of the industry's best open source talents
> ,----[ Quote ] > | You, personally, would convince more by going back to the innovation in GNOME > | that originally made you one of the most interesting developers on the > | planet. I want the old Miguel (and Nat - where has Nat Friedman been?) back, > | the one who demo'd Nat's Dashboard with Nat at OSCON. The one who led and > | pushed GNOME forward for so many years. > | > | The one who still has the potential to turn the industry on its head. But not > | by being Microsoft's best friend. Nor by being its acrid enemy. > | > | Rather, Miguel de Icaza can turn the industry on its head by putting his > | knowledge of interoperability and open source to work on developing the > | next-generation desktop (and not by recreating the "best" of Microsoft on > | Linux). It's not worth much to you, Miguel, but I think highly of your > | talents. That's why I'd like to ask you to get back to innovation, not the > | somewhat futile (meaning, few to no real customers will use it) Microsoft > | clone-ware you've been engaged in. > `----
> OpenSolaris, Gobuntu, and be careful who you kiss
> ,----[ Quote ] > | I read the agreement between Xandros and Microsoft, and one of the excluded > | products was Mono, so Microsoft promises to not sue Xandros over their > | distribution but excluding Mono and a few other products, i.e. they reserve > | the right to sue over Mono. I wonder if this is an interesting preview of on > | what basis they want to fight the free world. > | > | Interestingly, the Novell deal seems to be different, Mono is not excluded > | from the Novell deal. So Microsoft seems to be promising not to sue Novell > | over Mono, but keeps the option open for Xandros. Weird but true. > `----
> ,----[ Quote ] > | is Mono's role in the deal that of a hook to make customers write > | .NET applications because they can be run on Linux - only to find > | later on that they are armless or legless because of a change in > | the .NETspecifications, a change which Microsoft decides not to > | make public? > | > | [...] > | > | And here we have an individual who decides to replicate one of > | the proprietary company's development environments - for reasons > | best known to him alone - and keeps telling people that the reason > | he's doing it is so that he can pull people over from the > | proprietary company's side to his side!!! > `----
I'm ashamed to be a part of a community where FUD slinging is acceptable (and in many cases, cheered).
It's one thing to cheer for Free Software, it's another to FUD the competition/people who do not agree with you - even if they resort to mud slinging first, we mustn't ever stoop to that level - the people of the world are largely intelligent and will be able to see through the lies.
We, the Free Software community, should present ourselves as moral and fair, not vengeful and deceitful.
I believe that most of the Free Software community truly is moral and fair (otherwise I'd want no part in it anymore), but unfortunately it is the vocal minority that is ruining the Free Software community's reputation for all of us.
Jeffrey Stedfast wrote: > I'm ashamed to be a part of a community where FUD slinging is > acceptable (and in many cases, cheered).
You'll never make it out of cola alive.
> It's one thing to cheer for Free Software, it's another to FUD the > competition/people who do not agree with you - even if they resort to > mud slinging first, we mustn't ever stoop to that level - the people > of the world are largely intelligent and will be able to see through > the lies.
Lying "advocates" such as those found on comp.os.linux.advocacy don't care that their lies are ridiculous and transparent. They just spew them and ignore the truth and spew them some more.
> We, the Free Software community, should present ourselves as moral and > fair, not vengeful and deceitful.
In other words the Free Software community should hide half its true nature (free software adherents aren't generally deceitful that I've seen, but they're *extremely* nasty and vengeful little beasts).
> I believe that most of the Free Software community truly is moral and > fair (otherwise I'd want no part in it anymore), but unfortunately it > is the vocal minority that is ruining the Free Software community's > reputation for all of us.
You hear that Roy [Homer] Kent Kohlmann 7 Rasker Ballard Gidget? He's talking to and about your kind.
A few days ago I crossed the line between corporate and personal. I criticized Miguel de Icaza, a developer for whom I have significant professional respect. I suggested that he use his considerable talents on other projects with (in my estimation) more market impact.
That's not my place. Miguel writes code that he loves, and has the added bonus of getting paid to do so. I apologize. Sincerely.
> I'm ashamed to be a part of a community where FUD slinging is acceptable > (and in many cases, cheered).
Unfortunately, it seems that all communities eventually succumb to that temptation.
> I believe that most of the Free Software community truly is moral and > fair (otherwise I'd want no part in it anymore), but unfortunately it is > the vocal minority that is ruining the Free Software community's > reputation for all of us.
Not so sure about that. People seem to operate via pre-conceived notions rather than by introspection and intelligence.
That is not a "retraction", it's a *clarification* that much of the article was his /opinion/ rather than a report. Specifically he regrets that he "crossed the line between corporate and personal", and states emphatically that it is *not* "because anyone asked [him] to (Neither CNET nor Novell suggested a retraction)".
IOW his /opinion/ has *not* changed, he merely regrets /voicing/ that opinion publicly on CNet.
> I'm ashamed to be a part of a community
That much is transparently obvious.
But then you don't need to concern yourself with trivial things like the Free Software community, Jeff, when you can collect a nice fat pay cheque at the end of the month, for "contributing" so much Microsoft IP into the Free Software tree.
How is Ballmer anyway? Has his Golf handicap improved any?
> Jeff (a Free Software developer since 1997)
Yes, I know you are, "Jeff". Or should I say fejj[at]novell.com, fejj[at]gnome.org, fejj[at]stampede.org, fejj[at]ximian.com?
Attended any MS Developer conferences with your pal Miguel recently?
How is that whole MS encumbered "Mono" thing going, out of interest?
"Free" software, indeed. LOL!
Oh BTW, I just had the rather unpleasant surprise of discovering that apparently Yelp is now dependant on libbeagle, you know - as in Beagle, as in "Mono". But I'm sure it's nothing to worry about, after all - the core of Gnome will /never/ be dependant on Mono. Right Jeff?
It seems like it's getting harder and harder to avoid Microsoft IP, thanks to people like you and de Icaza. Thankfully there are those who are prepared to do the work to undo the damage you're doing.
And even if Gnome /does/ become infested with Mono, that's no big deal, right? After all, Mono /is/ "Free Software", isn't it? And it has /nothing/ whatever to do with Microsoft, and I'm sure Microsoft /will/ keep their non-legally binding "Reasonable And Non-Discriminatory" "promise", right Jeff. Microsoft would /never/ dream of using their IP claims to undermine Free Software, now would they? Nor would they ever make exclusionary deals to "protect" /one/ GNU/Linux vendor from .NET patent litigation, but not others ... right?
Oh wait...
So once you've finished poisoning the Free Software tree with encumbered Microsoft technology, just make sure to send me the invoice, so I know who to write the cheque out to. I wouldn't want to be caught running an "illegal" GNU/Linux distribution without paying Microsoft the correct "protection" fee, now would I?
>> I'm ashamed to be a part of a community where FUD slinging is >> acceptable (and in many cases, cheered).
> You'll never make it out of cola alive.
haha, we'll see - I don't plan on sticking around long ;-)
>> It's one thing to cheer for Free Software, it's another to FUD the >> competition/people who do not agree with you - even if they resort to >> mud slinging first, we mustn't ever stoop to that level - the people >> of the world are largely intelligent and will be able to see through >> the lies.
> Lying "advocates" such as those found on comp.os.linux.advocacy don't care > that their lies are ridiculous and transparent. They just spew them and > ignore the truth and spew them some more.
That is truly unfortunate.
I'm afraid that potential users and companies out there that might otherwise be interested in Linux/Free Software might get frightened off by such deceitful "spew".
>> We, the Free Software community, should present ourselves as moral and >> fair, not vengeful and deceitful.
> In other words the Free Software community should hide half its true nature > (free software adherents aren't generally deceitful that I've seen, but > they're *extremely* nasty and vengeful little beasts).
I think that's a bit unfair. I would say that at least 95+% of the Free Software supporters that I have met personally at conferences have been genuinely good people and did not seem to be at all vengeful.
While it is certainly possible that I've only been exposed to a minority group, I'd like to think that that is not the case.
The actions of the vocal minority flinging mud at individuals and companies is only detrimental to the success of Linux/FOSS imho.
>> I believe that most of the Free Software community truly is moral and >> fair (otherwise I'd want no part in it anymore), but unfortunately it >> is the vocal minority that is ruining the Free Software community's >> reputation for all of us.
> You hear that Roy [Homer] Kent Kohlmann 7 Rasker Ballard Gidget? He's > talking to and about your kind.
>> Thank you,
>> Jeff (a Free Software developer since 1997)
> Nice sentiments, but unrealistic I'm afraid.
Unfortunately, it would appear that you may be correct at least so far as c.o.l.a is concerned.
> That is not a "retraction", it's a *clarification* that much of the > article was his /opinion/ rather than a report.
No, it was a retraction.
re·tract (r-trkt) v. re·tract·ed, re·tract·ing, re·tracts v.tr. 1. To take back; disavow: refused to retract the statement. 2. To draw back or in: a plane retracting its landing gear. See Synonyms at recede1.
v.intr. 1. To take something back or disavow it. 2. To draw back.
I'm writing this not because anyone asked me to (Neither CNET nor Novell suggested a retraction). [...] I just didn't have a good way to take it back. (CNET doesn't allow deletion of posts. The tool simply doesn't support this feature.)
Using Matt Asay's own words, it is a retraction of his earlier post.
> Specifically he regrets > that he "crossed the line between corporate and personal", and states > emphatically that it is *not* "because anyone asked [him] to (Neither > CNET nor Novell suggested a retraction)".
This much we agree on.
> IOW his /opinion/ has *not* changed, he merely regrets /voicing/ that > opinion publicly on CNet.
And why do you suppose that is? ;-)
Probably because he realized that his opinion was misinformed.
[slew of personal insults snipped]
> Oh BTW, I just had the rather unpleasant surprise of discovering that > apparently Yelp is now dependant on libbeagle, you know - as in Beagle, > as in "Mono". But I'm sure it's nothing to worry about, after all - the > core of Gnome will /never/ be dependant on Mono. Right Jeff?
I'm not sure what this has to do with me, but a quick google of the problem reveals that someone not affiliated with myself nor Novell added the libbeagle dependency to Yelp.
You would have realized this, too, had you spent 30 seconds doing a little fact-checking. Apparently, however, this is not one of your fortes - you seem to find knee-jerk reactions and mud slinging more to taste.
[another slew of personal insults snipped]
I'll tell you what, when you are able and willing to have a mature and intelligent discussion, you may reach me at fejj [at] novell.com
For what it's worth, this is exactly the kind of diatribe that destroys the reputation of the Linux/FOSS community - I hope you are proud of yourself.
Verily I say unto thee, that Jeffrey Stedfast spake thusly:
[snip dictionary quote]
I really don't think I need to take English lessons from a Yank.
If the /article/ had been "retracted", then it wouldn't be there any more (it is). If Asay wished to retract his /opinion/ then he'd make it clear that his opinion had changed (he doesn't). What /is/ clear from the article is that he now feels that it was "not [his] place" to pass judgement on de Icaza, but at no point does he retract his opinion.
This is merely an apology for making his opinion public. Presumably he feels that, in retrospect, he should have exercised more diplomacy.
But by all means call it a "retraction" if it'll make you sleep easier.
Just FYI, that's all. Since you seem to be one of those dedicated to spreading the infection of Mono, I thought you'd be interested to know that it is slowly becoming inextricable from Gnome. I assume from your indifferent response that you're not denying that fact then?
> but a quick google of the problem reveals that someone not affiliated > with myself nor Novell added the libbeagle dependency to Yelp.
Well naturally, since Yelp is a *Gnome* project. The fact is that libbeagle is now a Yelp dependency, regardless of who committed the crime.
> You would have realized this, too, had you spent 30 seconds doing a > little fact-checking.
A little more "fact-checking" reveals that this problem (that you apparently know nothing about) seems to be affecting a number of other distros too:
> Verily I say unto thee, that Jeffrey Stedfast spake thusly:
> [snip dictionary quote]
> I really don't think I need to take English lessons from a Yank.
> If the /article/ had been "retracted", then it wouldn't be there any > more (it is). If Asay wished to retract his /opinion/ then he'd make it > clear that his opinion had changed (he doesn't). What /is/ clear from > the article is that he now feels that it was "not [his] place" to pass > judgement on de Icaza, but at no point does he retract his opinion.
> This is merely an apology for making his opinion public. Presumably he > feels that, in retrospect, he should have exercised more diplomacy.
> But by all means call it a "retraction" if it'll make you sleep easier.
> Just FYI, that's all. Since you seem to be one of those dedicated to > spreading the infection of Mono, I thought you'd be interested to know > that it is slowly becoming inextricable from Gnome. I assume from your > indifferent response that you're not denying that fact then?
>> but a quick google of the problem reveals that someone not affiliated >> with myself nor Novell added the libbeagle dependency to Yelp.
> Well naturally, since Yelp is a *Gnome* project. The fact is that > libbeagle is now a Yelp dependency, regardless of who committed the crime.
>> You would have realized this, too, had you spent 30 seconds doing a >> little fact-checking.
> A little more "fact-checking" reveals that this problem (that you > apparently know nothing about) seems to be affecting a number of other > distros too:
> Once again, let me just extend my warm thanks, for your participation in > poisoning the Free Software tree with Microsoft IP.
I don't want to write a long message about it and I haven't read the whole thread, but quick two points I wish to make are:
1) The "retraction" term was used by de Icaza before. It seems like a systematic method that reminds me Apple's and Microsoft's censorship.
2) I have caught Novell employees, including de Icaza, bending and twisting bloggers' arms in the past, especially after they had said bad things about Novell. In some cases, such bloggers were attacked by anonymous commenters. In other cases, they do it by E-mail. I bet you a million bucks de Icaza still sends E-mails to people. He asking for "retraction".
I have a lot more to say, but I know what I know about Mono and I'd rather than just it with hyperlinks. Awareness about these issues must be raised before it's /far/ too late.
For the record, I was a happy GNOME user for years. I haven't anything against GNOME, but the 'poisonware' it gets through the Novell 'food funnel' is more than a timebomb.
-- ~~ Best of wishes
Roy S. Schestowitz | X-No-Archive: No. Stand behind what you say http://Schestowitz.com | GNU/Linux | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E Mem: 515500k total, 443408k used, 72092k free, 1524k buffers http://iuron.com - next generation of search paradigms
> Just FYI, that's all. Since you seem to be one of those dedicated to > spreading the infection of Mono, I thought you'd be interested to know > that it is slowly becoming inextricable from Gnome. I assume from your > indifferent response that you're not denying that fact then?
I wouldn't know. I've only worked on a handful of GNOME applications and none of them depend on Mono and as far as I'm aware, there is no push to make GNOME depend on Mono - at least not by Novell or myself.
I'm personally not interested in pushing Mono - use it if you like, don't if you don't. It really makes no difference to me.
>> but a quick google of the problem reveals that someone not affiliated >> with myself nor Novell added the libbeagle dependency to Yelp.
> Well naturally, since Yelp is a *Gnome* project. The fact is that > libbeagle is now a Yelp dependency, regardless of who committed the crime.
Then why the personal attacks toward me? Were you just trying to show me how abusive and full of hate Linux Advocates such as yourself are?
Does that serve your purpose well, Keith G. Robertson-Turner? Does it help convince people to switch to Linux, where they are likely to be berated for having slight differences in opinion with you?
>> You would have realized this, too, had you spent 30 seconds doing a >> little fact-checking.
> A little more "fact-checking" reveals that this problem (that you > apparently know nothing about) seems to be affecting a number of other > distros too:
Is your point that a handful of people are upset that they have Mono on their systems? What about the rest of the users who seemingly either don't mind or actually /want/ Mono?
There are a lot of users/developers out there that actually want to use Mono and applications depending on Mono, one need look no further than the Mono mailing lists or the success stories listed on http://www.mono-project.org to see that.
For those that don't want Mono, I would agree, it should be possible for them to not install Mono, but other than the OpenSuSE distro, Novell does not control any of these distros nor does it control the direction of GNOME (afaik, Novell currently holds 0 positions in the GNOME Foundation board).
> Once again, let me just extend my warm thanks, for your participation in > poisoning the Free Software tree with Microsoft IP.
This is a pretty serious accusation... one which cannot be taken lightly, so I take it you must have done the necessary research to discover what Microsoft IP I've personally injected into Free Software or you wouldn't be making such outlandish claims.
Care to elaborate a little? Would this be Copyright IP? Or Patent IP? Would you also care to tell me what code and/or patents I've infringed?
Inquiring minds want to know...
Listing the specific IP that I (or even Novell) have infringed would go a long way toward reaching your personal goal of discrediting me/Novell as well as saving the Free Software community from IP lawsuits, so you really have no excuse for not revealing this information... unless of course, you are making unsubstantiated claims (which, I might add, is considered libel).
Jeffrey Stedfast wrote: >> Lying "advocates" such as those found on comp.os.linux.advocacy don't care >> that their lies are ridiculous and transparent. They just spew them and >> ignore the truth and spew them some more.
>That is truly unfortunate.
It's a lie.
It appears that you don't realize that the "DFS" twit that you are responding-to is about as worthless a lying POS as you can find trolling a newsgroup. You'd be well-advised to take nothing he writes as the truth. Indeed, the best thing is to simply ignore him.
>>> Lying "advocates" such as those found on comp.os.linux.advocacy don't care >>> that their lies are ridiculous and transparent. They just spew them and >>> ignore the truth and spew them some more. >> That is truly unfortunate.
> It's a lie.
> It appears that you don't realize that the "DFS" twit that you are > responding-to is about as worthless a lying POS as you can find > trolling a newsgroup. You'd be well-advised to take nothing he writes > as the truth. Indeed, the best thing is to simply ignore him.
It seems to me that DFS is simply frustrated by the hypocrisy and mud-slinging thrown around by self-proclaimed "Linux Advocates". If I were to hazard a guess, it would be that DFS feels that the Linux/FOSS community should hold itself to the same high moral standards that the Linux/FOSS community feels the proprietary software industry should be held to.
For example, whenever a proprietary software company slings mud at Linux/FOSS, "Linux Advocates" object and point out how unethical the flinger is. While there is nothing wrong with defending Linux/FOSS, the problem is that the Linux/FOSS advocates like to see themselves as morally superior and /yet/, they turn around and throw mud right back. This is hypocritical. One need look no farther than this forum or Slashdot to see examples of this type of "advocacy".
Now, this obviously does not apply to /all/ Linux supporters, but there do seem to be quite a few vocally abusive Linux supporters that this applies to, and unfortunately they are the loud ones.
My feeling is that if they took a step back and saw how they made the Linux/FOSS community look through the eyes of potential converts, they would realize that they are only hurting the Linux/FOSS reputation and are not convincing anyone to make the jump to Linux/FOSS.
How many times have you heard people say that Linux/FOSS advocates seem like hostile zealots by either potential converts or the proprietary software industry (likely as part of a FUD campaign)? Does that sound like a warm and fuzzy description of the Linux/FOSS community?
No, it does not.
My issue is that these abusive advocates are doing more harm than good.
My hope is that said advocates simply do not realize what they are doing and that once they see the light, they will change their ways and advocate Linux/FOSS in constructive ways. For example, Roy Schestowitz has recently posted some constructive articles about successes in Linux. This is the type of advocacy that helps Linux. On the other hand, making unsubstantiated claims of IP infringement only serves to keep people away from Linux because they fear they cannot trust it - this is playing right into Microsoft's hands.
I'm probably naive in thinking that all people are inherently good, but I'd argue that it doesn't hurt to try to show people the err of their ways. If I'm successful, then all the better for Linux/FOSS advocacy. If I fail, then Linux/FOSS advocacy stays the same.
>>>> Lying "advocates" such as those found on comp.os.linux.advocacy don't >>>> care >>>> that their lies are ridiculous and transparent. They just spew them >>>> and ignore the truth and spew them some more. >>> That is truly unfortunate.
>> It's a lie.
>> It appears that you don't realize that the "DFS" twit that you are >> responding-to is about as worthless a lying POS as you can find >> trolling a newsgroup. You'd be well-advised to take nothing he writes >> as the truth. Indeed, the best thing is to simply ignore him.
> It seems to me that DFS is simply frustrated by the hypocrisy and > mud-slinging thrown around by self-proclaimed "Linux Advocates". If I > were to hazard a guess, it would be that DFS feels that the Linux/FOSS > community should hold itself to the same high moral standards that the > Linux/FOSS community feels the proprietary software industry should be > held to.
Nope, he *is* a troll & a devout M$ fanboi. He's also a racist & liar.
Jeffrey Stedfast wrote: >> It appears that you don't realize that the "DFS" twit that you are >> responding-to is about as worthless a lying POS as you can find >> trolling a newsgroup. You'd be well-advised to take nothing he writes >> as the truth. Indeed, the best thing is to simply ignore him.
>It seems to me that DFS is simply frustrated by the hypocrisy and >mud-slinging thrown around by self-proclaimed "Linux Advocates"
It seems to me that you're a worthless troll yourself.
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Jeffrey Stedfast <stedf...@comcast.net> wrote on Tue, 06 Nov 2007 09:56:08 -0500 <-6CdnSssPrQVHa3anZ2dnUVZ_vGin...@comcast.com>:
>>>> Lying "advocates" such as those found on comp.os.linux.advocacy don't care >>>> that their lies are ridiculous and transparent. They just spew them and >>>> ignore the truth and spew them some more. >>> That is truly unfortunate.
>> It's a lie.
>> It appears that you don't realize that the "DFS" twit that you are >> responding-to is about as worthless a lying POS as you can find >> trolling a newsgroup. You'd be well-advised to take nothing he writes >> as the truth. Indeed, the best thing is to simply ignore him.
> It seems to me that DFS is simply frustrated by the hypocrisy and > mud-slinging thrown around by self-proclaimed "Linux Advocates". If I > were to hazard a guess, it would be that DFS feels that the Linux/FOSS > community should hold itself to the same high moral standards that the > Linux/FOSS community feels the proprietary software industry should be > held to.
Higher, in fact.
> For example, whenever a proprietary software company slings mud at > Linux/FOSS, "Linux Advocates" object and point out how unethical the > flinger is. While there is nothing wrong with defending Linux/FOSS,
Actually, there is. Linux/FOSS should need no defense. It stands on its own.
(To be fair, Amiga was also at one point standing pretty well on its own, from a technical standpoint. Too bad it didn't sell -- and Commodore died for lack of selling it.)
> the > problem is that the Linux/FOSS advocates like to see themselves as > morally superior and /yet/, they turn around and throw mud right back. > This is hypocritical. One need look no farther than this forum or > Slashdot to see examples of this type of "advocacy".
> Now, this obviously does not apply to /all/ Linux supporters, but there > do seem to be quite a few vocally abusive Linux supporters that this > applies to, and unfortunately they are the loud ones.
> My feeling is that if they took a step back and saw how they made the > Linux/FOSS community look through the eyes of potential converts, they > would realize that they are only hurting the Linux/FOSS reputation and > are not convincing anyone to make the jump to Linux/FOSS.
It matters little. Linux/FOSS needs absolutely no advocacy -- at least if given half a chance, anyway. It's Microsoft Windows Vista Ultimate Price Edition that needs to be sold.
And that's what some of the posters in here are in fact doing. ;-)
> How many times have you heard people say that Linux/FOSS advocates seem > like hostile zealots
Seem?
> by either potential converts or the proprietary > software industry (likely as part of a FUD campaign)? Does that sound > like a warm and fuzzy description of the Linux/FOSS community?
> No, it does not.
But it is an accurate one here in COLA. Admittedly, it may be an outgrowth of the Unix maxim "Sure, Unix is friendly; it's just picky about its friends".
Maybe we're a little picky about our software? :-) Like, maybe, that it actually works in a reasonably predictable (if not always desirable) fashion?
> My issue is that these abusive advocates are doing more harm than good.
> My hope is that said advocates simply do not realize what they are doing > and that once they see the light, they will change their ways and > advocate Linux/FOSS in constructive ways. For example, Roy Schestowitz > has recently posted some constructive articles about successes in Linux.
Roy's solution is decidedly mixed. Of course, I'm not about to research all of his articles, but some of the Winvocates are claiming that he mangles headlines (I've seen him do that, but only unintentionally), misrepresents articles, and other such. Personally, I think Roy's heart is in the right place, and some of the accusations are even wilder -- the general idea being using a copyrighted picture without permission on his website, or other such.
This sort of thing detracts from what appears to be Roy's central point: that Linux has some buzz, that there are companies using Linux, that blogs mention Linux in a positive light, that Linux generates news, that Linux has advantages, that Linux works just about everywhere it needs to, etc.
And yes, he has some posts about that rival, too; can't avoid them in a monopolistic desktop market and other markets into which where the rival is attempting to expand (e.g., mobiles). Microsoft and Microsoft Windows are not standing still; Microsoft will continue to sell until its dying breath, as that is what it is designed to do, as a corporation. Microsoft Windows will be improved to help it to sell; certainly Vista is a much-needed upgrade in the Windows community, though IMO it's a day late and a dollar short; most Linux distros have passed it by from a technical standpoint.
> This is the type of advocacy that helps Linux.
If done correctly. However, at best it's only half the truth; what about the articles that indicate Windows is better? (They're out there; the IDC study is probably the most readily known.) Admittedly, one has to ask the obvious question of which set of articles is generally more accurate, and how one defines "better"; the Windows way is not better though it might be more consistent, mostly because Windows is so idiotically ubiquitous.
(Nor is it clear that Windows is more consistent. However, I don't have any examples offhand.)
> On the other hand, making > unsubstantiated claims of IP infringement only serves to keep people > away from Linux because they fear they cannot trust it - this is playing > right into Microsoft's hands.
Microsoft has made similar claims -- 235 patent violations according to news reports. They feel they do have substantiation but have yet to show their hand. I'd liken this to a high-stakes game of poker -- and that may not be all that far off an analogy. Whom do *you* believe out there, Gentle Reader? A loose-knit bunch of bloggers, amateur advocates, zealots, and users, or a gigantic monopolizing corporation?
Hobson's choice, perhaps -- though one has to wonder. At least the bunch don't have a huge amount of bribery money (though IBM is probably watching all this fairly closely).
> I'm probably naive in thinking that all people are inherently good,
That is a philosophical question for another day, and inherently false anyway.
- First, all people inherently do not even meaningfully *exist* unless trained (the first stage of training arguably being sitting on the toilet, the second one's native tongue -- though one could quibble endlessly here, and I'm not that knowledgeable about child psychology or even pragmatic baby rearing to be all that helpful here).
In other words, identity has to be learned, projected, occasionally fought for. Who are you, really? Who am I? How does one establish one's territory? The more genteel method: words. Some might use visceral pictures or movies, appealing to the emotional side in most of us. Some might use even more primitive methods, such as weaponry -- and it is frightful to contemplate the number of ways we can harm one enother, from the pointed barb, the word (which can generally be laughed off) to the pointed barb, the fishhook or spearhead (which is hard to pull out and damages flesh) to the club to the bullet to the bomb to the current ultimate hydrogen explosive device, which fortunately has never been used in warfare -- but that doesn't mean it never will -- to the ultimate sci-fi matter-antimatter weapon, which will hopefully never be realized in practice.
(The establishment of one's identity for purposes of remuneration is a related though not as interesting issue.)
- Second, "good" is a social norm, and also has to be learned as well; if one looks at the problem from a certain direction, the hero tends to constrain himself while attempting to save the world from the clutches of the evil, immoral black-tophatted villain. [*]
In other words, the hero won't try to kidnap the villain's mistress (not that that would help all that much; the villain would just find another, presumably!) or otherwise do evil, nefarious deeds in order to stop his nemesis; the villain has no such constraints (though he might have other constraints; it's hard to extort tribute from a destroyed planet, or a dead father, for example :-) ).
So yes, you are naive, but then, it's a nice thought; people do have a streak of altruism in them, by and large (it makes *us* feel good to help someone in need -- but the flip side is that it may create a dependency) and we're a generally social animal anyway, craving to belong, make an influence, find a mate, and leave a lasting legacy (children, if nothing else).
> but > I'd argue that it doesn't hurt to try to show people > the err of their ways.
Ah, but it does. The example coming most readily to mind, admittedly, is drilling in the tooth -- which to me at least is exquisite torture, for a short time, mostly because of the very annoying sound of the drill (the pain is numbed out by local anesthetics, fortunately -- unless one has a *very* sadistic dentist). The discomfort suffered is for the greater good of not losing one's tooth later, or running the risk of formation of an abcess or stimulation of the tooth's nerve -- the dreaded toothache.
Chemotherapy is another such, for the eradication of cancer; cancerous cells apparently are just a little more sensitive, so the rest of the cells put up with the assault (except, perhaps, certain hair follicles).
On a larger front, one might contemplate road construction; the constriction by construction of traffic is tolerated for a number of months in order to (eventually) improve traffic flow. Building construction to a lesser extent can also be included
...
>>>> Lying "advocates" such as those found on comp.os.linux.advocacy don't care >>>> that their lies are ridiculous and transparent. They just spew them and >>>> ignore the truth and spew them some more. >>> That is truly unfortunate.
>> It's a lie.
>> It appears that you don't realize that the "DFS" twit that you are >> responding-to is about as worthless a lying POS as you can find >> trolling a newsgroup. You'd be well-advised to take nothing he writes >> as the truth. Indeed, the best thing is to simply ignore him.
> It seems to me that DFS is simply frustrated by the hypocrisy and > mud-slinging thrown around by self-proclaimed "Linux Advocates". If I > were to hazard a guess, it would be that DFS feels that the Linux/FOSS > community should hold itself to the same high moral standards that the > Linux/FOSS community feels the proprietary software industry should be > held to.
It's a chicken-egg situation. DuFuS seems frustrated perhaps (I personally think it's a case of crocodile tears). But DuFuS brought on some of the things that frustrate him by acting radical on his own, spurring others to be radical. DuFuS was/is such a twit that sometimes people say things to set him off. It works. So much so that now he believes that everything said is believed by everyone saying them.
DuFuS earned his names: DuFus, Doofus, Doofie, DumbFullShit, Dumb Fucking Shit, etc. He got them for being an antagonistic prick. You can side with him if you'd like. But eventually you'll see that you've been had, And in the interim you'll probably suffer some abuse as well for supporting an antagonistic prick.
It's better to not entertain his wild-eyed, paranoid assertions, and just let him go on his kook tirades alone. But that's your decision.
I am not suggesting that you are wilfully breaking any law, in fact I have already stated that Microsoft (through ECMA) make RAND promises WRT .NET (or part of it at least). But the fact is that neither you (as a developer) nor I (as a user of what you may develop) can give any hard assurances that anything we touch that is built upon .NET technology won't some day be used by Microsoft to enforce their "claims" that they have rights WRT GNU/Linux (thus justifying cross-licensing).
Ballmer has /already/ used such claims (not .NET related so far) to coerce at least four companies into paying "protection money". The prospect that, at some time in the future, it will be impossible to use GNU/Linux without paying Microsoft, horrifies me.
Convince me that will never happen.
Convince me that Mono will never play a part in that.
When it comes to Mono, I am merely stating my desire of /not/ wanting to deal with Microsoft ... ever.
I apologise if my rant seemed to be singling you out; the object of my dissent is not /you/, it is Mono. However, I despair at those who support it.
____/ chrisv on Tuesday 06 November 2007 16:07 : \____
> Jeffrey Stedfast wrote:
>>> It appears that you don't realize that the "DFS" twit that you are >>> responding-to is about as worthless a lying POS as you can find >>> trolling a newsgroup. You'd be well-advised to take nothing he writes >>> as the truth. Indeed, the best thing is to simply ignore him.
>>It seems to me that DFS is simply frustrated by the hypocrisy and >>mud-slinging thrown around by self-proclaimed "Linux Advocates"
> It seems to me that you're a worthless troll yourself.
> *plonk*
No, he just doesn't know who or what "DFS" is. As the saying goes in Slashdot, "you must be new here."
Roy Schestowitz wrote: >____/ chrisv on Tuesday 06 November 2007 16:07 : \____
>> Jeffrey Stedfast wrote:
>>>> It appears that you don't realize that the "DFS" twit that you are >>>> responding-to is about as worthless a lying POS as you can find >>>> trolling a newsgroup. You'd be well-advised to take nothing he writes >>>> as the truth. Indeed, the best thing is to simply ignore him.
>>>It seems to me that DFS is simply frustrated by the hypocrisy and >>>mud-slinging thrown around by self-proclaimed "Linux Advocates"
>> It seems to me that you're a worthless troll yourself.
>> *plonk*
>No, he just doesn't know who or what "DFS" is. As the saying goes in >Slashdot, "you must be new here."
Well, what kind of fscking idiot comes-into an advocacy group and immediately sides with an anti-advocate troll against the advocates? Perhaps the idiot should consider lurking before taking sides.
> ____/ chrisv on Tuesday 06 November 2007 16:07 : \____
>> Jeffrey Stedfast wrote:
>>>> It appears that you don't realize that the "DFS" twit that you are >>>> responding-to is about as worthless a lying POS as you can find >>>> trolling a newsgroup. You'd be well-advised to take nothing he writes >>>> as the truth. Indeed, the best thing is to simply ignore him.
>>>It seems to me that DFS is simply frustrated by the hypocrisy and >>>mud-slinging thrown around by self-proclaimed "Linux Advocates"
>> It seems to me that you're a worthless troll yourself.
>> *plonk*
> No, he just doesn't know who or what "DFS" is. As the saying goes in > Slashdot, "you must be new here."
He´s been caught with his trousers down, and with the arrogance I´ve come to expect from those who come here to spin, for example, the redefinition of the term retraction is an interesting one, and demonstrates the deep dishonesty of the writer.
When people are that dishonest, it´s typically becuase they believe that they are so much more intelligent than the people they´re dealing with that they can pull the wool over their eyes by being deeply insulting, as this chap has been and continues to be, whilst trying to dress it as ¨adult¨helpful advice.
As you say, he must be new here. And clearly far too lazy to perform even the slightest investigation of the environment.
I would expect no less from a Microsoft apologist.
>>> It appears that you don't realize that the "DFS" twit that you are >>> responding-to is about as worthless a lying POS as you can find >>> trolling a newsgroup. You'd be well-advised to take nothing he writes >>> as the truth. Indeed, the best thing is to simply ignore him.
>>It seems to me that DFS is simply frustrated by the hypocrisy and >>mud-slinging thrown around by self-proclaimed "Linux Advocates"
> It seems to me that you're a worthless troll yourself.
