Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Hardworking executive flees Mokia
26 views
Skip to first unread message
7
Oct 7, 2012, 5:52:26 PM10/7/12
to
Hardworking executive flees Mokia
---------------------------------
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/5c2c7296-109d-11e2-87cc-00144feabdc0.html
Looks like a hardworking executive who has a reputation
of success to protect has fled Mokia.
A sign of Elopic Hemorrhagic Fever gripping the Mokia board.
Some executives have already left to form a 200 million Euro
Linux based mobile phone OS company.
No one refused them venture capital.
Anyone who tries to bring in ex-microshaft employees
into a company should be frog marched out the door
if you want to protect your investment and your company.
With micorshaftee infiltrators around
they are likely to be moles eating the heart out of the
company with micoshaft liquid crap hitting the fan
at every opportune moment to sink the company in a dung
heap of its own making.
---------------------------------
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/5c2c7296-109d-11e2-87cc-00144feabdc0.html
Looks like a hardworking executive who has a reputation
of success to protect has fled Mokia.
A sign of Elopic Hemorrhagic Fever gripping the Mokia board.
Some executives have already left to form a 200 million Euro
Linux based mobile phone OS company.
No one refused them venture capital.
Anyone who tries to bring in ex-microshaft employees
into a company should be frog marched out the door
if you want to protect your investment and your company.
With micorshaftee infiltrators around
they are likely to be moles eating the heart out of the
company with micoshaft liquid crap hitting the fan
at every opportune moment to sink the company in a dung
heap of its own making.
Snit
Oct 7, 2012, 6:06:10 PM10/7/12
to
On 10/7/12 2:52 PM, in article uQmcs.269072$2%5.9...@fx05.am4, "7"
understand the tech industry know of folks such as Gabe Newell and Mohamad
Jarrar, but those names likely mean nothing to you.
By the way, keep in mind that MS was one of the top contributors to Linux
last year.
--
<http://goo.gl/uFKQS>
15 points Foster and his farm of loonies will *always* run from... and
absolute proof they know their accusations are false.
<email_at_www_at_en...@enemygadgets.com> wrote:
> Anyone who tries to bring in ex-microshaft employees
> into a company should be frog marched out the door
From an illiterate and foolish perspective, sure. Those of us who
> Anyone who tries to bring in ex-microshaft employees
> into a company should be frog marched out the door
understand the tech industry know of folks such as Gabe Newell and Mohamad
Jarrar, but those names likely mean nothing to you.
By the way, keep in mind that MS was one of the top contributors to Linux
last year.
--
<http://goo.gl/uFKQS>
15 points Foster and his farm of loonies will *always* run from... and
absolute proof they know their accusations are false.
7
Oct 7, 2012, 6:30:10 PM10/7/12
to
Snit wrote:
>> Anyone who tries to bring in ex-microshaft employees
>> into a company should be frog marched out the door
>
> From an illiterate and foolish perspective, sure. Those of us who
> understand the tech industry know of folks such as Gabe Newell and Mohamad
> Jarrar, but those names likely mean nothing to you.
Is that another pack of lies from you Snit again?
>> Anyone who tries to bring in ex-microshaft employees
>> into a company should be frog marched out the door
>
> From an illiterate and foolish perspective, sure. Those of us who
> understand the tech industry know of folks such as Gabe Newell and Mohamad
> Jarrar, but those names likely mean nothing to you.
You told us you have limited hardware (just one computer?) and
with it limited knowledge of computing. And yet you troll
and lie - 3000+ posts last month - filling in all the gaps
in your knowledge with more trolls and lies.
> By the way, keep in mind that MS was one of the top contributors to Linux
> last year.
'Top' because it had to fix so many lines that flagged up as errors on
just one project. Most projects don't have so many syntax errors for just
one project.
Snit
Oct 7, 2012, 6:34:01 PM10/7/12
to
On 10/7/12 3:30 PM, in article Ynncs.199683$AT4.1...@fx19.am4, "7"
<email_at_www_at_en...@enemygadgets.com> wrote:
> Snit wrote:
>
>
>>> Anyone who tries to bring in ex-microshaft employees
>>> into a company should be frog marched out the door
>>
>> From an illiterate and foolish perspective, sure. Those of us who
>> understand the tech industry know of folks such as Gabe Newell and Mohamad
>> Jarrar, but those names likely mean nothing to you.
>
> Is that another pack of lies from you Snit again?
No, it is true - you almost surely have no idea who those people are.
> Snit wrote:
>
>
>>> Anyone who tries to bring in ex-microshaft employees
>>> into a company should be frog marched out the door
>>
>> From an illiterate and foolish perspective, sure. Those of us who
>> understand the tech industry know of folks such as Gabe Newell and Mohamad
>> Jarrar, but those names likely mean nothing to you.
>
> Is that another pack of lies from you Snit again?
Chris Ahlstrom
Oct 7, 2012, 6:45:16 PM10/7/12
to
After swilling some grog, 7 belched this bit o' wisdom:
> A sign of Elopic Hemorrhagic Fever gripping the Mokia board.
=================
Heh!
--
if you are proud of (your degree) then tell everyone. Doesn't bother
me.
-- Hadron Quark, lying shamelessly
> A sign of Elopic Hemorrhagic Fever gripping the Mokia board.
Heh!
--
if you are proud of (your degree) then tell everyone. Doesn't bother
me.
-- Hadron Quark, lying shamelessly
Chris Ahlstrom
Oct 7, 2012, 6:46:19 PM10/7/12
to
After swilling some grog, 7 belched this bit o' wisdom:
> Snit wrote:
More cowbell.
Less Snit.
--
Poor Creepy Chris. Despite all his wailing and gnashing of teeth at
poeple calling him names and laughing at him, he just cant let it drop
and continues to suck up. Pathetic.
Ironically putting quotes around our names in a reply "Sinister Midget",
the sad little wheener doesn't even see the hypocrisy in that.
-- "Hadron" <5pmla7-...@news.eternal-september.org
owl
Oct 7, 2012, 7:11:46 PM10/7/12
to
Chris Ahlstrom <ad...@cyberbully.com> wrote:
> After swilling some grog, 7 belched this bit o' wisdom:
> > Snit wrote:
> More cowbell.
> Less Snit.
Hell yeah, cowbell!
> After swilling some grog, 7 belched this bit o' wisdom:
> > Snit wrote:
> More cowbell.
> Less Snit.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qFhM1XZsh6o
owl
Oct 7, 2012, 7:27:21 PM10/7/12
to
Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> On 10/7/12 2:52 PM, in article uQmcs.269072$2%5.9...@fx05.am4, "7"
> <email_at_www_at_en...@enemygadgets.com> wrote:
> > Anyone who tries to bring in ex-microshaft employees
> > into a company should be frog marched out the door
> From an illiterate and foolish perspective, sure. Those of us who
> understand the tech industry know of folks such as Gabe Newell and Mohamad
> Jarrar,
Who? Are they recent drone strike targets?
> On 10/7/12 2:52 PM, in article uQmcs.269072$2%5.9...@fx05.am4, "7"
> <email_at_www_at_en...@enemygadgets.com> wrote:
> > Anyone who tries to bring in ex-microshaft employees
> > into a company should be frog marched out the door
> From an illiterate and foolish perspective, sure. Those of us who
> understand the tech industry know of folks such as Gabe Newell and Mohamad
> Jarrar,
> but those names likely mean nothing to you.
> By the way, keep in mind that MS was one of the top contributors to Linux
> last year.
Snit
Oct 7, 2012, 7:36:45 PM10/7/12
to
On 10/7/12 4:27 PM, in article wl....@rooftop.invalid, "owl"
>> but those names likely mean nothing to you.
>
>> By the way, keep in mind that MS was one of the top contributors to Linux
>> last year.
>
> They added some bloatware interface, which was itself bloatware.
So Linux is filled with bloatware in your view. Interesting to note.
<o...@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
> Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>> On 10/7/12 2:52 PM, in article uQmcs.269072$2%5.9...@fx05.am4, "7"
>> <email_at_www_at_en...@enemygadgets.com> wrote:
>
>>> Anyone who tries to bring in ex-microshaft employees
>>> into a company should be frog marched out the door
>
>> From an illiterate and foolish perspective, sure. Those of us who
>> understand the tech industry know of folks such as Gabe Newell and Mohamad
>> Jarrar,
>
> Who? Are they recent drone strike targets?
Sure. LOL!
> Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>> On 10/7/12 2:52 PM, in article uQmcs.269072$2%5.9...@fx05.am4, "7"
>> <email_at_www_at_en...@enemygadgets.com> wrote:
>
>>> Anyone who tries to bring in ex-microshaft employees
>>> into a company should be frog marched out the door
>
>> From an illiterate and foolish perspective, sure. Those of us who
>> understand the tech industry know of folks such as Gabe Newell and Mohamad
>> Jarrar,
>
> Who? Are they recent drone strike targets?
>> but those names likely mean nothing to you.
>
>> By the way, keep in mind that MS was one of the top contributors to Linux
>> last year.
>
> They added some bloatware interface, which was itself bloatware.
Chris Ahlstrom
Oct 8, 2012, 6:32:12 AM10/8/12
to
After swilling some grog, owl belched this bit o' wisdom:
And a lot of the activity from Microsoft was the churn of fixing things
they hadn't bothered to get right the first time. And it's not "Linux"
per se, it's only the kernel. Anyway, one (flawed) aspect of the story:
http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/2166123/microsoft-contributed-code-canonical-linux-2632
Microsoft contributed more code than Canonical to Linux since 2.6.32
More code? No, not code... code and code changes. In other words,
code-fisting slop.
To continue:
SOFTWARE DEVELOPER Microsoft entered the top 20 in the list of Linux
kernel contributors, coming in 17th place ahead of Linaro and
Canonical.
Microsoft, a firm that many Linux users believe tried to kill off
Linux through SCO, is the 17th most active contributor to the Linux
kernel project since version 2.6.36. According to figures released by
the Linux Foundation, Microsoft submitted 688 changes, one per cent
of the overall changelog.
One percent, eh? And Snit converts that to
>> MS was one of the top contributors to Linux
Whereas the reality is that Microsoft's contribution was tiny:
Microsoft's contribution in the grand scale of Linux is tiny, with
Red Hat, Intel, Novell and IBM accounting for almost 25 per cent of
all changes. Microsoft however is very keen to make Linux
distributions work well with its Hyper-V hypervisor, so its kernel
contributions are not entirely selfless.
As the loose wording of the URL title shows, though, Snit is not the
only dumbass to crow misleadingly about Microsoft's "top" contribution
to the "Linux".
--
The Least Successful Equal Pay Advertisement
In 1976 the European Economic Community pointed out to the Irish
Government that it had not yet implemented the agreed sex equality
legislation. The Dublin Government immediately advertised for an equal pay
enforcement officer. The advertisement offered different salary scales for
men and women.
-- Stephen Pile, "The Book of Heroic Failures"
they hadn't bothered to get right the first time. And it's not "Linux"
per se, it's only the kernel. Anyway, one (flawed) aspect of the story:
http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/2166123/microsoft-contributed-code-canonical-linux-2632
Microsoft contributed more code than Canonical to Linux since 2.6.32
More code? No, not code... code and code changes. In other words,
code-fisting slop.
To continue:
SOFTWARE DEVELOPER Microsoft entered the top 20 in the list of Linux
kernel contributors, coming in 17th place ahead of Linaro and
Canonical.
Microsoft, a firm that many Linux users believe tried to kill off
Linux through SCO, is the 17th most active contributor to the Linux
kernel project since version 2.6.36. According to figures released by
the Linux Foundation, Microsoft submitted 688 changes, one per cent
of the overall changelog.
One percent, eh? And Snit converts that to
>> MS was one of the top contributors to Linux
Microsoft's contribution in the grand scale of Linux is tiny, with
Red Hat, Intel, Novell and IBM accounting for almost 25 per cent of
all changes. Microsoft however is very keen to make Linux
distributions work well with its Hyper-V hypervisor, so its kernel
contributions are not entirely selfless.
As the loose wording of the URL title shows, though, Snit is not the
only dumbass to crow misleadingly about Microsoft's "top" contribution
to the "Linux".
--
The Least Successful Equal Pay Advertisement
In 1976 the European Economic Community pointed out to the Irish
Government that it had not yet implemented the agreed sex equality
legislation. The Dublin Government immediately advertised for an equal pay
enforcement officer. The advertisement offered different salary scales for
men and women.
-- Stephen Pile, "The Book of Heroic Failures"
William Poaster
Oct 8, 2012, 7:36:35 AM10/8/12
to
was in their *own* interest & is to improve the performance of virtual
Linux guest systems in a Windows hosted environment.
Futhermore, M$ was *forced* to submit the code when it was discovered
that they had incorporated a Hyper-V network driver with GPL-licensed
components statically linked to closed-source binaries.
> As the loose wording of the URL title shows, though, Snit is not the
> only dumbass to crow misleadingly about Microsoft's "top" contribution
> to the "Linux".
just like the rest of the trolling 'herd'.
--
The Internet: where men are men, women are men, and children are FBI
agents.
Scientific-Linux 6.3 64-bit.
Snit
Oct 8, 2012, 11:00:41 AM10/8/12
to
On 10/8/12 3:32 AM, in article k4ua3a$cfs$1...@dont-email.me, "Chris Ahlstrom"
You can make all the excuses you want. The *fact* is MS was one of the top
contributors to the Linux last year. Does not fit the herd narrative that MS
is evil and against MS, but it is true. If the code they contributed was
bad, by the way, why was it accepted? Do Linus and the others in charge
accept anything and stuff it into the kernel, no matter how bad? That seems
to be the herd excuse here. They are shooting themselves in their own feet.
contributors to the Linux last year. Does not fit the herd narrative that MS
is evil and against MS, but it is true. If the code they contributed was
bad, by the way, why was it accepted? Do Linus and the others in charge
accept anything and stuff it into the kernel, no matter how bad? That seems
to be the herd excuse here. They are shooting themselves in their own feet.
Steve Carroll
Oct 8, 2012, 12:20:37 PM10/8/12
to
On Oct 8, 5:40 am, William Poaster <w...@induh-vidual.net> wrote:
> Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
> > After swilling some grog, owl belched this bit o' wisdom:
>
> >> Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> >>> On 10/7/12 2:52 PM, in article uQmcs.269072$2%5.90...@fx05.am4, "7"
> Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
> > After swilling some grog, owl belched this bit o' wisdom:
>
> >> Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> >>> <email_at_www_at_enemygadgets_dot_...@enemygadgets.com> wrote:
>
> >>> > Anyone who tries to bring in ex-microshaft employees
> >>> > into a company should be frog marched out the door
>
> >>> From an illiterate and foolish perspective, sure. Those of us who
> >>> understand the tech industry know of folks such as Gabe Newell and Mohamad
> >>> Jarrar,
>
> >> Who? Are they recent drone strike targets?
>
> >>> but those names likely mean nothing to you.
>
> >>> By the way, keep in mind that MS was one of the top contributors to Linux
> >>> last year.
>
> >> They added some bloatware interface, which was itself bloatware.
>
> > And a lot of the activity from Microsoft was the churn of fixing things
> > they hadn't bothered to get right the first time. And it's not "Linux"
> > per se, it's only the kernel. Anyway, one (flawed) aspect of the story:
>
> > http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/2166123/microsoft-contribute...
>
> >>> > Anyone who tries to bring in ex-microshaft employees
> >>> > into a company should be frog marched out the door
>
> >>> From an illiterate and foolish perspective, sure. Those of us who
> >>> understand the tech industry know of folks such as Gabe Newell and Mohamad
> >>> Jarrar,
>
> >> Who? Are they recent drone strike targets?
>
> >>> but those names likely mean nothing to you.
>
> >>> By the way, keep in mind that MS was one of the top contributors to Linux
> >>> last year.
>
> >> They added some bloatware interface, which was itself bloatware.
>
> > And a lot of the activity from Microsoft was the churn of fixing things
> > they hadn't bothered to get right the first time. And it's not "Linux"
> > per se, it's only the kernel. Anyway, one (flawed) aspect of the story:
>
Steve Carroll
Oct 8, 2012, 12:45:50 PM10/8/12
to
On Oct 8, 3:32 am, Chris Ahlstrom <ad...@cyberbully.com> wrote:
> After swilling some grog, owl belched this bit o' wisdom:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> >> On 10/7/12 2:52 PM, in article uQmcs.269072$2%5.90...@fx05.am4, "7"
> After swilling some grog, owl belched this bit o' wisdom:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> >> <email_at_www_at_enemygadgets_dot_...@enemygadgets.com> wrote:
>
> >> > Anyone who tries to bring in ex-microshaft employees
> >> > into a company should be frog marched out the door
>
> >> From an illiterate and foolish perspective, sure. Those of us who
> >> understand the tech industry know of folks such as Gabe Newell and Mohamad
> >> Jarrar,
>
> > Who? Are they recent drone strike targets?
>
> >> but those names likely mean nothing to you.
>
> >> By the way, keep in mind that MS was one of the top contributors to Linux
> >> last year.
>
> > They added some bloatware interface, which was itself bloatware.
>
> And a lot of the activity from Microsoft was the churn of fixing things
> they hadn't bothered to get right the first time. And it's not "Linux"
> per se, it's only the kernel. Anyway, one (flawed) aspect of the story:
>
> http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/2166123/microsoft-contribute...
>
> >> > Anyone who tries to bring in ex-microshaft employees
> >> > into a company should be frog marched out the door
>
> >> From an illiterate and foolish perspective, sure. Those of us who
> >> understand the tech industry know of folks such as Gabe Newell and Mohamad
> >> Jarrar,
>
> > Who? Are they recent drone strike targets?
>
> >> but those names likely mean nothing to you.
>
> >> By the way, keep in mind that MS was one of the top contributors to Linux
> >> last year.
>
> > They added some bloatware interface, which was itself bloatware.
>
> And a lot of the activity from Microsoft was the churn of fixing things
> they hadn't bothered to get right the first time. And it's not "Linux"
> per se, it's only the kernel. Anyway, one (flawed) aspect of the story:
>
>
> Microsoft contributed more code than Canonical to Linux since 2.6.32
>
> More code? No, not code... code and code changes. In other words,
> code-fisting slop.
>
> To continue:
>
> SOFTWARE DEVELOPER Microsoft entered the top 20 in the list of Linux
> kernel contributors, coming in 17th place ahead of Linaro and
> Canonical.
>
> Microsoft, a firm that many Linux users believe tried to kill off
> Linux through SCO, is the 17th most active contributor to the Linux
> kernel project since version 2.6.36. According to figures released by
> the Linux Foundation, Microsoft submitted 688 changes, one per cent
> of the overall changelog.
>
> One percent, eh? And Snit converts that to
>
> >> MS was one of the top contributors to Linux
>
> Whereas the reality is that Microsoft's contribution was tiny:
>
> Microsoft's contribution in the grand scale of Linux is tiny, with
> Red Hat, Intel, Novell and IBM accounting for almost 25 per cent of
> all changes. Microsoft however is very keen to make Linux
> distributions work well with its Hyper-V hypervisor, so its kernel
> contributions are not entirely selfless.
>
> As the loose wording of the URL title shows, though, Snit is not the
> only dumbass to crow misleadingly about Microsoft's "top" contribution
> to the "Linux".
Snit misunderstands everything. When pressed he will say he made a
> Microsoft contributed more code than Canonical to Linux since 2.6.32
>
> More code? No, not code... code and code changes. In other words,
> code-fisting slop.
>
> To continue:
>
> SOFTWARE DEVELOPER Microsoft entered the top 20 in the list of Linux
> kernel contributors, coming in 17th place ahead of Linaro and
> Canonical.
>
> Microsoft, a firm that many Linux users believe tried to kill off
> Linux through SCO, is the 17th most active contributor to the Linux
> kernel project since version 2.6.36. According to figures released by
> the Linux Foundation, Microsoft submitted 688 changes, one per cent
> of the overall changelog.
>
> One percent, eh? And Snit converts that to
>
> >> MS was one of the top contributors to Linux
>
> Whereas the reality is that Microsoft's contribution was tiny:
>
> Microsoft's contribution in the grand scale of Linux is tiny, with
> Red Hat, Intel, Novell and IBM accounting for almost 25 per cent of
> all changes. Microsoft however is very keen to make Linux
> distributions work well with its Hyper-V hypervisor, so its kernel
> contributions are not entirely selfless.
>
> As the loose wording of the URL title shows, though, Snit is not the
> only dumbass to crow misleadingly about Microsoft's "top" contribution
> to the "Linux".
"mistake". When others make mistakes, though, they are illiterate and
foolish, in his demented world.
7
Oct 7, 2012, 7:13:23 PM10/7/12
to
Snit wrote:
>>>> Anyone who tries to bring in ex-microshaft employees
>>>> into a company should be frog marched out the door
>>>
>>> From an illiterate and foolish perspective, sure. Those of us who
>>> understand the tech industry know of folks such as Gabe Newell and
>>> Mohamad Jarrar, but those names likely mean nothing to you.
>>
>> Is that another pack of lies from you Snit again?
>
> No, it is true - you almost surely have no idea who those people are.
Are you sure about ALL your lies and trolls you printed Snit?
>>>> Anyone who tries to bring in ex-microshaft employees
>>>> into a company should be frog marched out the door
>>>
>>> From an illiterate and foolish perspective, sure. Those of us who
>>> understand the tech industry know of folks such as Gabe Newell and
>>> Mohamad Jarrar, but those names likely mean nothing to you.
>>
>> Is that another pack of lies from you Snit again?
>
> No, it is true - you almost surely have no idea who those people are.
You admit you have limited hardware (one computer?) from which
you get all your limited knowledge and your endless trolling
with your limited knowledge is packed with lies and stuffed
with trolls to cover up the deficiencies in your limited knowledge
of computing. Is that taking care of all your trolls and lies Snit?
Snit
Oct 8, 2012, 6:35:00 PM10/8/12
to
On 10/7/12 4:13 PM, in article 4wIcs.431606$1R2.2...@fx07.am4, "7"
indication you do know, though, and if you do you show no understanding of
how they disprove your claim.
As noted: you present yourself as illiterate and foolish.
...
<email_at_www_at_en...@enemygadgets.com> wrote:
> Snit wrote:
>
>
>>>>> Anyone who tries to bring in ex-microshaft employees
>>>>> into a company should be frog marched out the door
>>>>
>>>> From an illiterate and foolish perspective, sure. Those of us who
>>>> understand the tech industry know of folks such as Gabe Newell and
>>>> Mohamad Jarrar, but those names likely mean nothing to you.
>>>
>>> Is that another pack of lies from you Snit again?
>>
>> No, it is true - you almost surely have no idea who those people are.
>
> Are you sure
No, that is why I say "almost surely" and not "surely". You give no
> Snit wrote:
>
>
>>>>> Anyone who tries to bring in ex-microshaft employees
>>>>> into a company should be frog marched out the door
>>>>
>>>> From an illiterate and foolish perspective, sure. Those of us who
>>>> understand the tech industry know of folks such as Gabe Newell and
>>>> Mohamad Jarrar, but those names likely mean nothing to you.
>>>
>>> Is that another pack of lies from you Snit again?
>>
>> No, it is true - you almost surely have no idea who those people are.
>
> Are you sure
indication you do know, though, and if you do you show no understanding of
how they disprove your claim.
As noted: you present yourself as illiterate and foolish.
...
TomB
Oct 9, 2012, 1:15:21 AM10/9/12
to
On 2012-10-08, the following emerged from the brain of Chris Ahlstrom:
8<
>>> By the way, keep in mind that MS was one of the top contributors
>>> to Linux last year.
>>
>> They added some bloatware interface, which was itself bloatware.
>
> And a lot of the activity from Microsoft was the churn of fixing
> things they hadn't bothered to get right the first time. And it's
> not "Linux" per se, it's only the kernel. Anyway, one (flawed)
> aspect of the story:
>
> http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/2166123/microsoft-contributed-code-canonical-linux-2632
>
> Microsoft contributed more code than Canonical to Linux since
> 2.6.32
>
> More code? No, not code... code and code changes. In other words,
> code-fisting slop.
They are counting "commits" as far as I know, so there is no
disctinction between "added" code and "changed" code. Not that this is
important at all. In the grand scheme of things, Microsoft's
contributions to the Linux kernel are very tiny, and only concern
support for the Hyper-V platform.
> To continue:
>
> SOFTWARE DEVELOPER Microsoft entered the top 20 in the list of Linux
> kernel contributors, coming in 17th place ahead of Linaro and
> Canonical.
>
> Microsoft, a firm that many Linux users believe tried to kill off
> Linux through SCO, is the 17th most active contributor to the Linux
> kernel project since version 2.6.36. According to figures released by
> the Linux Foundation, Microsoft submitted 688 changes, one per cent
> of the overall changelog.
Indeed, one percent of the changelog between 2.6.36 and 3.2, and just
through adding support for the Hyper-V platform.
> One percent, eh? And Snit converts that to
>
>>> MS was one of the top contributors to Linux
I think he included "last year" in his initial claim, but that doesn't
make it any less of a bullshit claim. He's probably referring to the
fix-ups on the Hyper-V stuff for Linux 3.1 (I think it was 3.1),
where indeed MS was responsible for a rather large part of the
changelog. This was one single occurance though, and hardly can be
presented as the norm for the entire year.
The correct claim would be
"With the 3.1 release Microsoft was responsible for a large part of
the overall changelog."
> Whereas the reality is that Microsoft's contribution was tiny:
>
> Microsoft's contribution in the grand scale of Linux is tiny,
> with Red Hat, Intel, Novell and IBM accounting for almost 25 per
> cent of all changes. Microsoft however is very keen to make Linux
> distributions work well with its Hyper-V hypervisor, so its
> kernel contributions are not entirely selfless.
>
> As the loose wording of the URL title shows, though, Snit is not the
> only dumbass to crow misleadingly about Microsoft's "top"
> contribution to the "Linux".
Ah, the media... Microsoft added support for Hyper-V to Linux. Period.
It certainly isn't a "top contributor" because of that.
8<
>>> By the way, keep in mind that MS was one of the top contributors
>>> to Linux last year.
>>
>> They added some bloatware interface, which was itself bloatware.
>
> And a lot of the activity from Microsoft was the churn of fixing
> things they hadn't bothered to get right the first time. And it's
> not "Linux" per se, it's only the kernel. Anyway, one (flawed)
> aspect of the story:
>
> http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/2166123/microsoft-contributed-code-canonical-linux-2632
>
> Microsoft contributed more code than Canonical to Linux since
> 2.6.32
>
> More code? No, not code... code and code changes. In other words,
> code-fisting slop.
disctinction between "added" code and "changed" code. Not that this is
important at all. In the grand scheme of things, Microsoft's
contributions to the Linux kernel are very tiny, and only concern
support for the Hyper-V platform.
> To continue:
>
> SOFTWARE DEVELOPER Microsoft entered the top 20 in the list of Linux
> kernel contributors, coming in 17th place ahead of Linaro and
> Canonical.
>
> Microsoft, a firm that many Linux users believe tried to kill off
> Linux through SCO, is the 17th most active contributor to the Linux
> kernel project since version 2.6.36. According to figures released by
> the Linux Foundation, Microsoft submitted 688 changes, one per cent
> of the overall changelog.
through adding support for the Hyper-V platform.
> One percent, eh? And Snit converts that to
>
>>> MS was one of the top contributors to Linux
make it any less of a bullshit claim. He's probably referring to the
fix-ups on the Hyper-V stuff for Linux 3.1 (I think it was 3.1),
where indeed MS was responsible for a rather large part of the
changelog. This was one single occurance though, and hardly can be
presented as the norm for the entire year.
The correct claim would be
"With the 3.1 release Microsoft was responsible for a large part of
the overall changelog."
> Whereas the reality is that Microsoft's contribution was tiny:
>
> Microsoft's contribution in the grand scale of Linux is tiny,
> with Red Hat, Intel, Novell and IBM accounting for almost 25 per
> cent of all changes. Microsoft however is very keen to make Linux
> distributions work well with its Hyper-V hypervisor, so its
> kernel contributions are not entirely selfless.
>
> As the loose wording of the URL title shows, though, Snit is not the
> only dumbass to crow misleadingly about Microsoft's "top"
> contribution to the "Linux".
It certainly isn't a "top contributor" because of that.
Snit
Oct 9, 2012, 10:37:50 AM10/9/12
to
On 10/8/12 10:15 PM, in article 201210090...@usenet.drumscum.be,
contributed a lot over the *years*. Who knows, they may or may not be
contributing a lot this year.
The point is anyone who is saying they want to avoid anything MS has its
hands in should avoid Linux. Of course, the only people saying this are
cult-like whackos who base their computing decisions on something other than
what serves them best (and this includes Linux and OS X users - there are
whackos who use both of them). As such, reason and rationality will not come
into play and they will simply make excuses and be inconsistent.
>> To continue:
>>
>> SOFTWARE DEVELOPER Microsoft entered the top 20 in the list of Linux
>> kernel contributors, coming in 17th place ahead of Linaro and
>> Canonical.
>>
>> Microsoft, a firm that many Linux users believe tried to kill off
>> Linux through SCO, is the 17th most active contributor to the Linux
>> kernel project since version 2.6.36. According to figures released by
>> the Linux Foundation, Microsoft submitted 688 changes, one per cent
>> of the overall changelog.
>
> Indeed, one percent of the changelog between 2.6.36 and 3.2, and just
> through adding support for the Hyper-V platform.
>
>> One percent, eh? And Snit converts that to
>>
>>>> MS was one of the top contributors to Linux
>
> I think he included "last year" in his initial claim, but that doesn't
> make it any less of a bullshit claim.
It is an *accurate* claim.
<http://goo.gl/r4vDH>
-----
For the first time ever, Microsoft appeared in the list of the
top-20 contributors for a kernel release.
-----
Company Name Number of Changes Percent of Total
Microsoft 688 1.0%
-----
Company Name Signoff Lines Percent of Total
Microsoft 2,174 1.1%
-----
That is from the Linux Foundation. And you are saying that they are making a
"bullshit claim". Insane.
> He's probably referring to the fix-ups on the Hyper-V stuff for Linux 3.1 (I
> think it was 3.1), where indeed MS was responsible for a rather large part of
> the changelog. This was one single occurance though, and hardly can be
> presented as the norm for the entire year.
So the Linux Foundation was doing something wrong in presenting this
information? Did you want them to bury this... hide the facts?
> The correct claim would be
>
> "With the 3.1 release Microsoft was responsible for a large part of
> the overall changelog."
>
>> Whereas the reality is that Microsoft's contribution was tiny:
>>
>> Microsoft's contribution in the grand scale of Linux is tiny,
>> with Red Hat, Intel, Novell and IBM accounting for almost 25 per
>> cent of all changes. Microsoft however is very keen to make Linux
>> distributions work well with its Hyper-V hypervisor, so its
>> kernel contributions are not entirely selfless.
>>
>> As the loose wording of the URL title shows, though, Snit is not the
>> only dumbass to crow misleadingly about Microsoft's "top"
>> contribution to the "Linux".
>
> Ah, the media... Microsoft added support for Hyper-V to Linux. Period.
> It certainly isn't a "top contributor" because of that.
So you think the Linux Foundation is lying in a way to benefit Microsoft.
That is just silly.
"TomB" <tommy.b...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2012-10-08, the following emerged from the brain of Chris Ahlstrom:
>
> 8<
>
>>>> By the way, keep in mind that MS was one of the top contributors
>>>> to Linux last year.
>>>
>>> They added some bloatware interface, which was itself bloatware.
>>
>> And a lot of the activity from Microsoft was the churn of fixing
>> things they hadn't bothered to get right the first time. And it's
>> not "Linux" per se, it's only the kernel. Anyway, one (flawed)
>> aspect of the story:
>>
>>
>> http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/2166123/microsoft-contributed-code-c
>> anonical-linux-2632
>>
>> Microsoft contributed more code than Canonical to Linux since
>> 2.6.32
>>
>> More code? No, not code... code and code changes. In other words,
>> code-fisting slop.
>
> They are counting "commits" as far as I know, so there is no
> disctinction between "added" code and "changed" code. Not that this is
> important at all. In the grand scheme of things, Microsoft's
> contributions to the Linux kernel are very tiny, and only concern
> support for the Hyper-V platform.
Well, being one of the top contributors for a year is not saying they have
> On 2012-10-08, the following emerged from the brain of Chris Ahlstrom:
>
> 8<
>
>>>> By the way, keep in mind that MS was one of the top contributors
>>>> to Linux last year.
>>>
>>> They added some bloatware interface, which was itself bloatware.
>>
>> And a lot of the activity from Microsoft was the churn of fixing
>> things they hadn't bothered to get right the first time. And it's
>> not "Linux" per se, it's only the kernel. Anyway, one (flawed)
>> aspect of the story:
>>
>>
>> http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/2166123/microsoft-contributed-code-c
>> anonical-linux-2632
>>
>> Microsoft contributed more code than Canonical to Linux since
>> 2.6.32
>>
>> More code? No, not code... code and code changes. In other words,
>> code-fisting slop.
>
> They are counting "commits" as far as I know, so there is no
> disctinction between "added" code and "changed" code. Not that this is
> important at all. In the grand scheme of things, Microsoft's
> contributions to the Linux kernel are very tiny, and only concern
> support for the Hyper-V platform.
contributed a lot over the *years*. Who knows, they may or may not be
contributing a lot this year.
The point is anyone who is saying they want to avoid anything MS has its
hands in should avoid Linux. Of course, the only people saying this are
cult-like whackos who base their computing decisions on something other than
what serves them best (and this includes Linux and OS X users - there are
whackos who use both of them). As such, reason and rationality will not come
into play and they will simply make excuses and be inconsistent.
>> To continue:
>>
>> SOFTWARE DEVELOPER Microsoft entered the top 20 in the list of Linux
>> kernel contributors, coming in 17th place ahead of Linaro and
>> Canonical.
>>
>> Microsoft, a firm that many Linux users believe tried to kill off
>> Linux through SCO, is the 17th most active contributor to the Linux
>> kernel project since version 2.6.36. According to figures released by
>> the Linux Foundation, Microsoft submitted 688 changes, one per cent
>> of the overall changelog.
>
> Indeed, one percent of the changelog between 2.6.36 and 3.2, and just
> through adding support for the Hyper-V platform.
>
>> One percent, eh? And Snit converts that to
>>
>>>> MS was one of the top contributors to Linux
>
> I think he included "last year" in his initial claim, but that doesn't
> make it any less of a bullshit claim.
<http://goo.gl/r4vDH>
-----
For the first time ever, Microsoft appeared in the list of the
top-20 contributors for a kernel release.
-----
Company Name Number of Changes Percent of Total
Microsoft 688 1.0%
-----
Company Name Signoff Lines Percent of Total
Microsoft 2,174 1.1%
-----
That is from the Linux Foundation. And you are saying that they are making a
"bullshit claim". Insane.
> He's probably referring to the fix-ups on the Hyper-V stuff for Linux 3.1 (I
> think it was 3.1), where indeed MS was responsible for a rather large part of
> the changelog. This was one single occurance though, and hardly can be
> presented as the norm for the entire year.
information? Did you want them to bury this... hide the facts?
> The correct claim would be
>
> "With the 3.1 release Microsoft was responsible for a large part of
> the overall changelog."
>
>> Whereas the reality is that Microsoft's contribution was tiny:
>>
>> Microsoft's contribution in the grand scale of Linux is tiny,
>> with Red Hat, Intel, Novell and IBM accounting for almost 25 per
>> cent of all changes. Microsoft however is very keen to make Linux
>> distributions work well with its Hyper-V hypervisor, so its
>> kernel contributions are not entirely selfless.
>>
>> As the loose wording of the URL title shows, though, Snit is not the
>> only dumbass to crow misleadingly about Microsoft's "top"
>> contribution to the "Linux".
>
> Ah, the media... Microsoft added support for Hyper-V to Linux. Period.
> It certainly isn't a "top contributor" because of that.
That is just silly.
TomB
Oct 9, 2012, 5:14:02 PM10/9/12
to
On 2012-10-09, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
8<
> -----
> For the first time ever, Microsoft appeared in the list of the
> top-20 contributors for a kernel release.
> -----
> Company Name Number of Changes Percent of Total
> Microsoft 688 1.0%
> -----
> Company Name Signoff Lines Percent of Total
> Microsoft 2,174 1.1%
> -----
>
> That is from the Linux Foundation. And you are saying that they are
> making a "bullshit claim". Insane.
Now show me exactly where I called those stats a bullshit claim. Oh,
you can't? Sure. It's because you're lying. Again.
8<
8<
> -----
> For the first time ever, Microsoft appeared in the list of the
> top-20 contributors for a kernel release.
> -----
> Company Name Number of Changes Percent of Total
> Microsoft 688 1.0%
> -----
> Company Name Signoff Lines Percent of Total
> Microsoft 2,174 1.1%
> -----
>
> That is from the Linux Foundation. And you are saying that they are
> making a "bullshit claim". Insane.
you can't? Sure. It's because you're lying. Again.
8<
Snit
Oct 9, 2012, 5:40:37 PM10/9/12
to
On 10/9/12 2:14 PM, in article 201210092...@usenet.drumscum.be, "TomB"
You snipped where you called those a "bullshit claim".
The claim being referenced:
-----
TomB:
-----
The Linux Foundation <http://goo.gl/r4vDH>:
-----
When the Linux Foundation says that Microsoft was one of the "top-20
contributors" that is *not* a "bullshit claim" but when I say they are "one
of the top contributors" you think this is somehow a "bullshit claim".
And then you deny that you are a part of the herd. That is a "bullshit
claim" on your part. As I have noted, when I say the same things as Linux
Torvalds, Jim Zemlin, Mark Shuttleworth, or - as in this case - the Linux
Foundation I am deemed by your idiotic herd to be wrong, a Linux-hater, a
troll, and all sorts of other evils but the Linux Foundation and the others
are not. You and your herd cannot keep your stories consistent.
And you just proved it you liar.
The claim being referenced:
-----
MS was one of the top contributors to Linux
-----
TomB:
-----
I think he included "last year" in his initial claim, but that
doesn't make it any less of a bullshit claim.
-----
doesn't make it any less of a bullshit claim.
The Linux Foundation <http://goo.gl/r4vDH>:
-----
For the first time ever, Microsoft appeared in the list of the
top-20 contributors for a kernel release.
-----
Company Name Number of Changes Percent of Total
Microsoft 688 1.0%
-----
Company Name Signoff Lines Percent of Total
Microsoft 2,174 1.1%
-----
TomB:
For the first time ever, Microsoft appeared in the list of the
top-20 contributors for a kernel release.
-----
Company Name Number of Changes Percent of Total
Microsoft 688 1.0%
-----
Company Name Signoff Lines Percent of Total
Microsoft 2,174 1.1%
-----
-----
Now show me exactly where I called those stats a bullshit claim.
Oh, you can't? Sure. It's because you're lying. Again.
-----
Oh, you can't? Sure. It's because you're lying. Again.
When the Linux Foundation says that Microsoft was one of the "top-20
contributors" that is *not* a "bullshit claim" but when I say they are "one
of the top contributors" you think this is somehow a "bullshit claim".
And then you deny that you are a part of the herd. That is a "bullshit
claim" on your part. As I have noted, when I say the same things as Linux
Torvalds, Jim Zemlin, Mark Shuttleworth, or - as in this case - the Linux
Foundation I am deemed by your idiotic herd to be wrong, a Linux-hater, a
troll, and all sorts of other evils but the Linux Foundation and the others
are not. You and your herd cannot keep your stories consistent.
And you just proved it you liar.
TomB
Oct 9, 2012, 5:46:24 PM10/9/12
to
On 2012-10-09, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
8<
8<
> When the Linux Foundation says that Microsoft was one of the "top-20
> contributors" that is *not* a "bullshit claim" but when I say they
> are "one of the top contributors" you think this is somehow a
> "bullshit claim".
Ah, so you were not lying. You were just being extremely stupid.
> contributors" that is *not* a "bullshit claim" but when I say they
> are "one of the top contributors" you think this is somehow a
> "bullshit claim".
8<
Snit
Oct 9, 2012, 5:57:55 PM10/9/12
to
On 10/9/12 2:46 PM, in article 201210092...@usenet.drumscum.be, "TomB"
Ah, now it is "stupid" to quote your lies and attacks.
And you still say you are not a part of the herd, right? So you are spewing
these lies and attacks on your own and not to please the rest of the herd?
Sell that to someone who will buy your lies, TomB.
And you still say you are not a part of the herd, right? So you are spewing
these lies and attacks on your own and not to please the rest of the herd?
Sell that to someone who will buy your lies, TomB.
TomB
Oct 9, 2012, 6:02:53 PM10/9/12
to
On 2012-10-09, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
> On 10/9/12 2:46 PM, in article
> 201210092...@usenet.drumscum.be, "TomB"
><tommy.b...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 2012-10-09, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
>>
>> 8<
>>
>>> When the Linux Foundation says that Microsoft was one of the
>>> "top-20 contributors" that is *not* a "bullshit claim" but when I
>>> say they are "one of the top contributors" you think this is
>>> somehow a "bullshit claim".
>>
>> Ah, so you were not lying. You were just being extremely stupid.
>
> Ah, now it is "stupid" to quote your lies and attacks.
No, it is stupid to think that "one of the top 20 contributors" and
> On 10/9/12 2:46 PM, in article
> 201210092...@usenet.drumscum.be, "TomB"
><tommy.b...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 2012-10-09, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
>>
>> 8<
>>
>>> When the Linux Foundation says that Microsoft was one of the
>>> "top-20 contributors" that is *not* a "bullshit claim" but when I
>>> say they are "one of the top contributors" you think this is
>>> somehow a "bullshit claim".
>>
>> Ah, so you were not lying. You were just being extremely stupid.
>
> Ah, now it is "stupid" to quote your lies and attacks.
"one of the top contributors" mean the same thing.
Really, that's *extremely* stupid.
8<
Snit
Oct 9, 2012, 6:04:53 PM10/9/12
to
On 10/9/12 3:02 PM, in article 201210100...@usenet.drumscum.be, "TomB"
contributors"! LOL!
You are being dishonest *and* stupid, TomB.
> Really, that's *extremely* stupid.
Your BS is. But do not worry - your herd will lap it up and back you. Just
wait... they know you are wrong so they will feel compelled.
<tommy.b...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2012-10-09, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
>> On 10/9/12 2:46 PM, in article
>> 201210092...@usenet.drumscum.be, "TomB"
>> <tommy.b...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 2012-10-09, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
>>>
>>> 8<
>>>
>>>> When the Linux Foundation says that Microsoft was one of the
>>>> "top-20 contributors" that is *not* a "bullshit claim" but when I
>>>> say they are "one of the top contributors" you think this is
>>>> somehow a "bullshit claim".
>>>
>>> Ah, so you were not lying. You were just being extremely stupid.
>>
>> Ah, now it is "stupid" to quote your lies and attacks.
>
> No, it is stupid to think that "one of the top 20 contributors" and
> "one of the top contributors" mean the same thing.
Oh, oh! Do explain how the "top 20 contributors" are not "top
> On 2012-10-09, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
>> On 10/9/12 2:46 PM, in article
>> 201210092...@usenet.drumscum.be, "TomB"
>> <tommy.b...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 2012-10-09, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
>>>
>>> 8<
>>>
>>>> When the Linux Foundation says that Microsoft was one of the
>>>> "top-20 contributors" that is *not* a "bullshit claim" but when I
>>>> say they are "one of the top contributors" you think this is
>>>> somehow a "bullshit claim".
>>>
>>> Ah, so you were not lying. You were just being extremely stupid.
>>
>> Ah, now it is "stupid" to quote your lies and attacks.
>
> No, it is stupid to think that "one of the top 20 contributors" and
> "one of the top contributors" mean the same thing.
contributors"! LOL!
You are being dishonest *and* stupid, TomB.
> Really, that's *extremely* stupid.
wait... they know you are wrong so they will feel compelled.
TomB
Oct 9, 2012, 6:13:25 PM10/9/12
to
On 2012-10-09, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
> Oh, oh! Do explain (...)
If you really need an explanation, you're even more stupid than I
first thought.
Meh.
Snit
Oct 9, 2012, 6:17:45 PM10/9/12
to
On 10/9/12 3:13 PM, in article 201210100...@usenet.drumscum.be, "TomB"
And TomB runs from his own BS:
Once again, in a way completely consistent with one who is lying to back the
herd, TomB pretends I am wrong but a Linux-friendly group is right even when
we say the same thing.
And the herd *will* back him on this. Just wait. And then TomB will deny he
is a part of the herd. Too funny!
herd, TomB pretends I am wrong but a Linux-friendly group is right even when
we say the same thing.
And the herd *will* back him on this. Just wait. And then TomB will deny he
is a part of the herd. Too funny!
Steve Carroll
Oct 9, 2012, 6:25:11 PM10/9/12
to
always be more stupid than your last thought ;)
Steve Carroll
Oct 9, 2012, 6:30:39 PM10/9/12
to
On Oct 9, 3:17 pm, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> On 10/9/12 3:13 PM, in article 20121010001152....@usenet.drumscum.be, "TomB"
The only herd is the one you imagine. TomB was telling you something
and you shot him down to get attention.
People are not as stupid as you need them to be.
> On 10/9/12 3:13 PM, in article 20121010001152....@usenet.drumscum.be, "TomB"
and you shot him down to get attention.
People are not as stupid as you need them to be.
Steve Carroll
Oct 9, 2012, 8:40:14 PM10/9/12
to
On Oct 8, 10:15 pm, TomB <tommy.bongae...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2012-10-08, the following emerged from the brain of Chris Ahlstrom:
>
> 8<
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >>> By the way, keep in mind that MS was one of the top contributors
> >>> to Linux last year.
>
> >> They added some bloatware interface, which was itself bloatware.
>
> > And a lot of the activity from Microsoft was the churn of fixing
> > things they hadn't bothered to get right the first time. And it's
> > not "Linux" per se, it's only the kernel. Anyway, one (flawed)
> > aspect of the story:
>
> > http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/2166123/microsoft-contribute...
> On 2012-10-08, the following emerged from the brain of Chris Ahlstrom:
>
> 8<
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >>> By the way, keep in mind that MS was one of the top contributors
> >>> to Linux last year.
>
> >> They added some bloatware interface, which was itself bloatware.
>
> > And a lot of the activity from Microsoft was the churn of fixing
> > things they hadn't bothered to get right the first time. And it's
> > not "Linux" per se, it's only the kernel. Anyway, one (flawed)
> > aspect of the story:
>
Steve Carroll
Oct 9, 2012, 8:40:44 PM10/9/12
to
Steve Carroll
Oct 9, 2012, 8:41:42 PM10/9/12
to
0 new messages