The bizarro claims of Keith Curtis

Showing 1-163 of 163 messages
The bizarro claims of Keith Curtis DFS 5/8/11 10:15 PM
This guy is a real nutcase.

=====================================================================

"I didn't consider that many on a place like COLA would be a
reader." (of his book about Linux/free software)

"I can make small fixes to finesse issues. In fact, if you were so
smart, you could make these fixes while reading my book."

"I feel sorry for those who read the first version [of my book]"

"There might be software for PCs still, but it isn't a mass market any
more."

"Just look at the list of companies that people post here as proof that
some sentence of mine is a lie. Well, maybe, but the evidence they
bring as proof of my lie is actually flimsy and helps make my point."

"if you read my writing not realizing all the thinking that went into
it, you may miss the points."

"The only Python people who matter are those working on computer vision
and strong AI..."

"My argument is that "Microsoft is basically the last proprietary [PC
software mass-market] software company standing."

"There are proprietary companies out there still, but they are not mass
market."

"The audience isn't the PC desktop, the book is focused on the PC
desktop. That is a totally different point."

"I have no knowledge of Koji, nor interest in Fedora, so if my
description is wrong that is fine."

"The fact that the book includes a glossary means that you all should
give it some liberties."

"...cynical people often don't amount to much."

"I will let you know when the Linux desktop is not in the early days."

"Note all those companies wrote proprietary software, so that was also
part of their downfall."

"I write the truth as best I can and the best I can be bothered to given
the knowledge of the people reading the book."

"It is the year 2011. Wasn't technology supposed to be much better by now?"

"The most immoral thing Microsoft does is not support free software."

"It is a lot harder to succeed as a proprietary company. In fact it is
almost impossible."

"If Borland had been a free software company, they'd still be around..."

"I could make a stronger proof of a space elevator in 7 years."

"I believe the answer is that lying is allowed except in manners of
contracts."

"Linux is better for Dell's support business because Linux is more
flexible."

"Cuba is actually switching over [to Linux] this year."

"I agree that proprietary software is evil."

"Every codebase needs more developers."

"A Linux distro is much bigger than Facebook."


=====================================================================

LMAO!

cuckoo!  cuckoo!

Re: The bizarro claims of Keith Curtis KeithCu 5/8/11 11:23 PM
On May 8, 10:15 pm, DFS <nos...@dfs.com> wrote:

I am glad you find me amusing. I try to be funny and informative. I
don't know if you think anything is incorrect however. I stand by
everything but of course could always make a tweak or two. Editing is
a constant process.

I am glad you are studying my words because if they don't make sense
to you right now, they may one day. Ultimately, you guys are just the
foils. It is the quiet / open-minded of you I am communicating with.

-Keith

Re: The bizarro claims of Keith Curtis Chris Ahlstrom 5/9/11 3:11 AM
KeithCu wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:

DFS is a sneering clown and a quite unpleasant person.  A kook.

--
Q:        Why did the astrophysicist order three hamburgers?
A:        Because he was hungry.

Re: The bizarro claims of Keith Curtis amicus_curious 5/9/11 5:54 AM

"KeithCu" <kei...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:813f8099-71ea-463f-996e-0723376556ac@f31g2000pri.googlegroups.com...

>
> I am glad you find me amusing. I try to be funny and informative. I
> don't know if you think anything is incorrect however. I stand by
> everything but of course could always make a tweak or two. Editing is
> a constant process.
>
DFS cited a long list of things that he thinks are incorrect thoughts or
conclusions, but you offer no response and ignore such a golden opportunity.
One of these was:

"There are proprietary companies out there still, but they are not mass
market."

Now I think that a tremendous amount of proprietary software that derives
from the Windows environment's creation is mass market and I do not see
where what you say has any merit in this regard.  For starters, would you
claim that Symantec, McAfee, et al, products are other than mass market?  Of
course they have extensive corporate versions of these products as well as
other products sold to specialized markets, but they do participate in a
significant way in mass market products.  Intuit as well.


> I am glad you are studying my words because if they don't make sense
> to you right now, they may one day. Ultimately, you guys are just the
> foils. It is the quiet / open-minded of you I am communicating with.
>
Your main fault is that you picked an indefensibly difficult spot to play
from.  If it were tennis, you are caught at mid-court, having failed to
charge to the net and unable to defend at the baseline.  You incur the wrath
of the COLA mavens when you fail to demonize Microsoft and there is no way
to recover from that around here.  You offend the other side when you make
claims that open-source is the only effective way to achieve a useful end.

 

Re: The bizarro claims of Keith Curtis chrisv 5/9/11 6:25 AM
Chris Ahlstrom wrote:

> KeithCu wrote:
>
>> On May 8, 10:15?pm, DFS <nos...@dfs.com> wrote:
>>
>> I am glad you find me amusing. I try to be funny and informative. I
>> don't know if you think anything is incorrect however. I stand by
>> everything but of course could always make a tweak or two. Editing is
>> a constant process.
>>
>> I am glad you are studying my words because if they don't make sense
>> to you right now, they may one day. Ultimately, you guys are just the
>> foils. It is the quiet / open-minded of you I am communicating with.
>
>DFS is a sneering clown and a quite unpleasant person.  A kook.

"Keith" is, however, the kind of person who doesn't care.

Re: The useless turd chrisv Nest of Angels 5/9/11 6:26 AM

fscking asshole "chrisv" <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:soqfs6tto4mgagn2b30aeaga1u76o1pp17@4ax.com...


shut the fsck up already you useless piece of shit.

"chrisv" is a liar. "chrisv" is a piece of shit.


Re: The bizarro claims of Keith Curtis flatfish+++ 5/9/11 8:21 AM
On Mon, 9 May 2011 06:11:06 -0400, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:

> KeithCu wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>
>> On May 8, 10:15?pm, DFS <nos...@dfs.com> wrote:
>>
>> I am glad you find me amusing. I try to be funny and informative. I
>> don't know if you think anything is incorrect however. I stand by
>> everything but of course could always make a tweak or two. Editing is
>> a constant process.
>>
>> I am glad you are studying my words because if they don't make sense
>> to you right now, they may one day. Ultimately, you guys are just the
>> foils. It is the quiet / open-minded of you I am communicating with.
>
> DFS is a sneering clown and a quite unpleasant person.  A kook.

Slurp Slurp...

Congratulations Liarmutt = Chris Ahlstrom, you have just reached rock
bottom.

Even you first master Roy Schestowitz thinks Keith Curtis is a nut case.

So let's see you wiggle out of this one.


--
flatfish+++
Please visit our hall of Linux idiots.
http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/

Watching Linux Fail:
http://limuxwatch.blogspot.com/
 
Desktop Linux: The Dream Is Dead
"By the time Microsoft released the Windows 7 beta
in January 2009, Linux had clearly lost its chance at desktop glory."
http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/207999/desktop_linux_the_dream_is_dead.html

Re: The bizarro claims of Keith Curtis Ezekiel 5/9/11 10:08 AM
>
>"KeithCu" <kei...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:813f8099-71ea-463f-996e-0723376556ac@f31g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
>On May 8, 10:15 pm, DFS <nos...@dfs.com> wrote:
>
>I am glad you find me amusing. I try to be funny and informative.
>

I actually find your claims to be so ridiculous that they're laughable. You
know... those silly claims that you just snipped.

Here's how writing works... if you're going to make some ridiculous
outlandish claim - you need to BACK IT UP with facts.  Shrugging your
shoulders and excusing it with a "that's just how I see the world" doesn't
cut it.


Re: The bizarro claims of Keith Curtis Hadron 5/9/11 10:55 AM
DFS <nos...@dfs.com> writes:


Wow. A study in "retardity" ...

He must be a reverse troll.

Re: The bizarro claims of Keith Curtis Hadron 5/9/11 10:57 AM
Chris Ahlstrom <ahls...@xzoozy.com> writes:

> KeithCu wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>
>> On May 8, 10:15?pm, DFS <nos...@dfs.com> wrote:
>>
>> I am glad you find me amusing. I try to be funny and informative. I
>> don't know if you think anything is incorrect however. I stand by
>> everything but of course could always make a tweak or two. Editing is
>> a constant process.
>>
>> I am glad you are studying my words because if they don't make sense
>> to you right now, they may one day. Ultimately, you guys are just the
>> foils. It is the quiet / open-minded of you I am communicating with.
>
> DFS is a sneering clown and a quite unpleasant person.  A kook.

Well, well. Chris Ahlstrom is sucking up again!


Heel Liarmutt!

Heel I say!

You sad little man.

Re: The bizarro claims of Keith Curtis flatfish+++ 5/9/11 11:04 AM

Can you believe it?

Liarmutt has reached rock bottom.

He will suck up to anyone "advocating" Linux, no matter how bizarre the
claims may be.

What a real piece of garbage he is.


--
flatfish+++
Please visit our hall of Linux idiots.
http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/

Watching Linux Fail:
http://limuxwatch.blogspot.com/
 
Desktop Linux: The Dream Is Dead
"By the time Microsoft released the Windows 7 beta
in January 2009, Linux had clearly lost its chance at desktop glory."
http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/207999/desktop_linux_the_dream_is_dead.html

Re: The bizarro claims of Keith Curtis Hadron 5/9/11 11:52 AM
flatfish+++ <flat...@marianatrench.com> writes:

> On Mon, 09 May 2011 19:57:01 +0200, Hadron wrote:
>
>> Chris Ahlstrom <ahls...@xzoozy.com> writes:
>>
>>> KeithCu wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>>>
>>>> On May 8, 10:15?pm, DFS <nos...@dfs.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I am glad you find me amusing. I try to be funny and informative. I
>>>> don't know if you think anything is incorrect however. I stand by
>>>> everything but of course could always make a tweak or two. Editing is
>>>> a constant process.
>>>>
>>>> I am glad you are studying my words because if they don't make sense
>>>> to you right now, they may one day. Ultimately, you guys are just the
>>>> foils. It is the quiet / open-minded of you I am communicating with.
>>>
>>> DFS is a sneering clown and a quite unpleasant person.  A kook.
>>
>> Well, well. Chris Ahlstrom is sucking up again!
>>
>>
>> Heel Liarmutt!
>>
>> Heel I say!
>>
>> You sad little man.
>
> Can you believe it?
>
> Liarmutt has reached rock bottom.
>
> He will suck up to anyone "advocating" Linux, no matter how bizarre the
> claims may be.
>
> What a real piece of garbage he is.

Zeke pretty much nailed him today. Which will come as a big shock to
Creepy as only recently he was trying to suck up to Zeke again.

Re: The bizarro claims of Keith Curtis DFS 5/9/11 12:25 PM


True, I'm not very open-minded about Linux after seeing where it is 20
years after its introduction with its millions of contributors... but
that doesn't make your bizarro statements any less nutty.


This one is classic:


"if you read my writing not realizing all the thinking that went into
it, you may miss the points."


And this one is just plain ridiculous:


"It is a lot harder to succeed as a proprietary company. In fact it is
almost impossible."

Re: The bizarro claims of Keith Curtis DFS 5/9/11 1:34 PM


You just can't open your mouth without lying, turd.  Keith cares a lot,
as he responds to me often, and labels me a troll and insane and
sociopath and says 'your list isn't damning', etc.

Re: The bizarro claims of Keith Curtis Keith Curtis 5/9/11 2:26 PM
On May 9, 5:54 am, "amicus_curious" <a...@sti.net> wrote:
> "KeithCu" <keit...@gmail.com> wrote in message

>
> news:813f8099-71ea-463f-996e-0723376556ac@f31g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > I am glad you find me amusing. I try to be funny and informative. I
> > don't know if you think anything is incorrect however. I stand by
> > everything but of course could always make a tweak or two. Editing is
> > a constant process.
>
> DFS cited a long list of things that he thinks are incorrect thoughts or
> conclusions, but you offer no response and ignore such a golden opportunity.
> One of these was:

Those were comments from discussions. I am not looking for a golden
opportunity to repeat them.

>
> "There are proprietary companies out there still, but they are not mass
> market."
>
> Now I think that a tremendous amount of proprietary software that derives
> from the Windows environment's creation is mass market and I do not see
> where what you say has any merit in this regard.  For starters, would you
> claim that Symantec, McAfee, et al, products are other than mass market?  Of
> course they have extensive corporate versions of these products as well as
> other products sold to specialized markets, but they do participate in a
> significant way in mass market products.  Intuit as well.

Okay, the market of virus scanners and other software to work around
Windows flaws is mass-market. I will add a correction in a future
version.

To outsiders, that will reinforce my point that proprietary software
is dying.

>
> > I am glad you are studying my words because if they don't make sense
> > to you right now, they may one day. Ultimately, you guys are just the
> > foils. It is the quiet / open-minded of you I am communicating with.
>
> Your main fault is that you picked an indefensibly difficult spot to play
> from.  If it were tennis, you are caught at mid-court, having failed to
> charge to the net and unable to defend at the baseline.  You incur the wrath
> of the COLA mavens when you fail to demonize Microsoft

I do criticize MS for lying in the DOJ trial and being ruthless
sometimes. But Linux is failing because of the ignorance of it and the
mistakes it makes. I can be less friendly towards MS in the book for
those who hate it. I hadn't fully considered that there were a number
of paranoid and angry people. I thought any would laugh at my
shorthand. It is hard to be correct and readable.

Free software will win eventually, especially for "interesting"
software. I hope that doesn't offend people.

-Keith

Re: The bizarro claims of Keith Curtis Keith Curtis 5/9/11 2:32 PM
On May 9, 8:21 am, flatfish+++ <flatf...@marianatrench.com> wrote:
>
> > DFS is a sneering clown and a quite unpleasant person.  A kook.

I thought he was being polite.

I have a set of words for DFS that are unprintable and unprofessional.

DFS is a nasty, lying, and lazy piece of work. If every lie is more
evil, then how evil is DFS?

Re: The bizarro claims of Keith Curtis Keith Curtis 5/9/11 2:36 PM
On May 9, 10:08 am, "Ezekiel" <z...@nosuchmail.com> wrote:
> >"KeithCu" <keit...@gmail.com> wrote in message

Interesting. I cannot see them that way.

They are quotes from discussions. I am not super interested in having
them all over again. I hope you can understand that.

DFS: Why did you not include URLs? I know you get on my case for
HAVING NO FACTS WHATSOEVER but you did a bad job here and it wouldn't
have been much harder.

Removing the URLs is a form of dishonesty. And so DFS does it. He's
not interested in finding the truth, or facilitating that.

-Keith

Re: The bizarro claims of Keith Curtis Keith Curtis 5/9/11 2:46 PM
On May 9, 12:25 pm, DFS <nos...@dfs.com> wrote:
>
> True, I'm not very open-minded about Linux after seeing where it is 20
> years after its introduction with its millions of contributors... but
> that doesn't make your bizarro statements any less nutty.

You are a nut so unqualified to diagnose.

>
> This one is classic:
> "if you read my writing not realizing all the thinking that went into
> it, you may miss the points."

Yes I put that in there because I found that you trolls weren't
reading / understanding me and so I was having to repeat myself. Part
of your trick is to not understand or not read stuff that shoots down
your points.

And because the criticisms many of you make are not the point of the
sentence. If you think you've found a lie, it means you are probably
missing the point of the sentence.

>
> And this one is just plain ridiculous:
> "It is a lot harder to succeed as a proprietary company. In fact it is
> almost impossible."

I was speaking in the long term about how proprietary desktop software
is dead. So give that sentence another 20 years before you judge it
false. It may come true so calling it ridiculous is premature.

-Keith

Re: The bizarro claims of Keith Curtis DFS 5/9/11 3:01 PM


URLs?  Most are from your recent cola posts, and a couple are from your
book.  All are verbatim quotes, not taken out of context (which will be
your next evasion I'm sure).

Re: The bizarro claims of Keith Curtis DFS 5/9/11 3:15 PM
On 5/9/2011 5:26 PM, KeithCu wrote:

> Okay, the market of virus scanners and other software to work around
> Windows flaws is mass-market. I will add a correction in a future
> version.

So is the market for office software, and games, and music players, and
web browsers, and finance software, and many other categories of
applications that have broad usage and appeal.

Why can't you understand this?


> To outsiders, that will reinforce my point that proprietary software
> is dying.

If you continue to claim MS is the only or one of the few "mass market"
proprietary software companies around, you will reinforce that you are a
blithering idiot (there's no other way to say it).

> I do criticize MS for lying in the DOJ trial and being ruthless
> sometimes. But Linux is failing because of the ignorance of it and the
> mistakes it makes. I can be less friendly towards MS in the book for
> those who hate it. I hadn't fully considered that there were a number
> of paranoid and angry people. I thought any would laugh at my
> shorthand.  It is hard to be correct and readable.

ha!  That last sentence is another KeithCu classic.  Stick around, guy;
you're an idiot-quote machine - even better than 7 or Rex Ballard or
Gortard.


> Free software will win eventually, especially for "interesting"
> software. I hope that doesn't offend people.

Free software will NEVER wholesale displace MS\Windows\commercial code.
  It's far too good and entrenched.

And as an 11-year MS programmer, you did more than your share to help.

Re: The bizarro claims of Keith Curtis DFS 5/9/11 3:20 PM
On 5/9/2011 5:32 PM, KeithCu wrote:
> On May 9, 8:21 am, flatfish+++<flatf...@marianatrench.com>  wrote:
>>
>>> DFS is a sneering clown and a quite unpleasant person.  A kook.
>
> I thought he was being polite.
>
> I have a set of words for DFS that are unprintable and unprofessional.

cola is unmoderated, so it's not unprintable.

And your book is extremely unprofessional already, so don't let that
excuse stop you either.

Let me hear it!


> DFS is a nasty, lying, and lazy piece of work. If every lie is more
> evil, then how evil is DFS?

Not evil.  Just smacking down your idiocy.

Plus, do you really think it nasty to call you (and other Linux idiots)
out on your ridiculous statements and lies.

And where did I lie?  And how am I lazy?

Re: The bizarro claims of Keith Curtis Hadron 5/9/11 3:26 PM
KeithCu <kei...@gmail.com> writes:


Serious Q :  are you trolling or simply retarded? Your last sentence is
a total nonsequitur.

Re: The bizarro claims of Keith Curtis Hadron 5/9/11 3:27 PM
KeithCu <kei...@gmail.com> writes:


What lies?

He has correctly pointed out that you're an arrogant, puffed up moron
who writes total bullshit with zero to back you up.

Re: The bizarro claims of Keith Curtis Hadron 5/9/11 3:28 PM
KeithCu <kei...@gmail.com> writes:


Jed? Is that you?

Re: The bizarro claims of Keith Curtis Keith Curtis 5/9/11 3:35 PM
On May 9, 3:15 pm, DFS <nos...@dfs.com> wrote:
> On 5/9/2011 5:26 PM, KeithCu wrote:
>
> > Okay, the market of virus scanners and other software to work around
> > Windows flaws is mass-market. I will add a correction in a future
> > version.
>
> So is the market for office software, and games, and music players, and
> web browsers, and finance software, and many other categories of
> applications that have broad usage and appeal.

We are talking about proprietary software.

>
> Why can't you understand this?
>
> > To outsiders, that will reinforce my point that proprietary software
> > is dying.
>
> If you continue to claim MS is the only or one of the few "mass market"
> proprietary software companies around, you will reinforce that you are a
> blithering idiot (there's no other way to say it).

Many people won't disagree with that statement. Many remember Borland,
etc.

Re: The bizarro claims of Keith Curtis KeithCu 5/9/11 3:38 PM
On May 9, 3:26 pm, Hadron<hadronqu...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> > Okay, the market of virus scanners and other software to work around
> > Windows flaws is mass-market. I will add a correction in a future
> > version.
>
> > To outsiders, that will reinforce my point that proprietary software
> > is dying.
>
> Serious Q :  are you trolling or simply retarded? Your last sentence is
> a total nonsequitur.

Answer: writing something you don't understand yet. However, as you
don't say what is unclear, I can't explain.

Re: The bizarro claims of Keith Curtis Keith Curtis 5/9/11 3:43 PM
On May 9, 3:27 pm, Hadron<hadronqu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> What lies?

I have documented them along the way in the discussion.

>
> He has correctly pointed out that you're an arrogant, puffed up moron
> who writes total bullshit with zero to back you up.

I'm only arrogant to lying bullies like you.

Saying I have zero to back it up is a lie. I have talked to many Linux
people and done a lot of reading and research.

Re: The bizarro claims of Keith Curtis Keith Curtis 5/9/11 3:44 PM
On May 9, 3:01 pm, DFS <nos...@dfs.com> wrote:

> URLs?  Most are from your recent cola posts, and a couple are from your
> book.  All are verbatim quotes, not taken out of context (which will be
> your next evasion I'm sure).

It helps people to see the context if they want to. You aren't trying
to facilitate truth-finding. Everyone posts URLs to things around here.

Re: The bizarro claims of Keith Curtis Keith Curtis 5/9/11 3:59 PM
On May 9, 3:27 pm, Hadron<hadronqu...@gmail.com> wrote:

> What lies?
>


> He has correctly pointed out that you're an arrogant, puffed up moron
> who writes total bullshit with zero to back you up.

When you write nonsense like that you tell others that you are not
worthy of having a discussion.

Re: The bizarro claims of Keith Curtis William Poaster 5/9/11 4:09 PM
KeithCu wrote:

Rather ironic coming from the Hadron M$ troll:

"Hadron, you are so full of shit I am amazed I can't smell you.
You need to be on arrogant.assholes, not here."
Bill (sick of Hadron) Baka - alt.os.linux.ubuntu
Message-ID:   <cZ2Aj.8886$tW....@nlpi070.nbdc.sbc.com>

"I've decided to put you in the ole killfile. Hadron's constant
blathering on and self pontificating have finally worn me out.
I'm tired of his pompous ass - I can't believe that I've not
seen a single helpful post from him since I had the misfortune
of reading the posts."
Message-ID: <ie48ih$qtf$1...@news.eternal-september.org>
"jeff.g" ~ alt.os.linux.ubuntu

"You're still an arrogant prick full of himself and your shitty attitude
does far more harm than good."
Meat Plow - alt.os.linux.ubuntu
Message-ID:   <1k4eg4....@news.alt.net>

"It just makes him even more of an asshole.  Reading even a quote of his
posts is as unpleasant as discovering dogshit in the house."
AZ Nomad - aolu,
Message-ID: <slrnic3ldk.j...@ip70-176-155-130.ph.ph.cox.net>

"I didn't see his post because I have him killfiled over being a rabid Win-troll in a number of groups
whenever his C.O.L.A. buddies are on a trolling spree again, in addition
to the fact that he's simply an ill-mannered, ill-educated, arrogant and
shamelessly lying character.  I see him being cocky and abusive to other
people as well in what they quote from his posts, so I'm apparently not
the only one who doesn't like Hadron."
Aragorn - alt.os.linux.ubuntu
Message-ID:    <id18t3$k1i$1...@news.eternal-september.org>

And so on, & so on...


--
A)bort, R)etry, I)nfluence with large hammer.
"Microsoft has vast resources, literally billions of dollars in cash, or liquid assets reserves.
Microsoft is an incredibly successful empire built on the premise of market dominance with low-quality goods."
-- Former White House adviser Richard A. Clarke --

Re: The bizarro claims of Keith Curtis Snit 5/9/11 4:24 PM
KeithCu stated in post
76750b9a-d751-4beb-9aa8-2c5fa3084f26@k27g2000pri.googlegroups.com on 5/9/11
3:38 PM:

Proprietary software is *dying*?  Please tell me there is some context there
missing... because as a general statement that is absurd.


--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]


Re: The bizarro claims of Keith Curtis Snit 5/9/11 4:28 PM
KeithCu stated in post
413682ea-8c00-4bf2-b0b2-f97a7bf74b02@f31g2000pri.googlegroups.com on 5/9/11
3:59 PM:

First: I completely disagree with such name calling.  I will say, though,
that you have repeatedly made claims you cannot supply good arguments to
support and you make claims which are not rational, such as how wanting
people to pay a fair level of taxes is somehow a sign of jealousy.  That is
just bizarre.


--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]


Re: The bizarro claims of Keith Curtis Marti Van Lin 5/9/11 4:56 PM
Op 10-05-11 00:43, KeithCu schreef:

> On May 9, 3:27 pm, Hadron<hadronqu...@gmail.com>  wrote:
>> What lies?
>
> I have documented them along the way in the discussion.
>
>>
>> He has correctly pointed out that you're an arrogant, puffed up moron
>> who writes total bullshit with zero to back you up.

*SPLORF*

Oh dear, the irony :-D

> I'm only arrogant to lying bullies like you.
>
> Saying I have zero to back it up is a lie. I have talked to many Linux
> people and done a lot of reading and research.


--
|_|0|_| Marti T. van Lin, alias ML2MST
|_|_|0| Registered GNU/Linux user 513040
|0|0|0| http://osg33x.blogspot.com

Re: The bizarro claims of Keith Curtis DFS 5/9/11 6:00 PM
On 5/9/2011 6:35 PM, KeithCu wrote:
> On May 9, 3:15 pm, DFS<nos...@dfs.com>  wrote:

>> On 5/9/2011 5:26 PM, KeithCu wrote:
>>
>>> Okay, the market of virus scanners and other software to work around
>>> Windows flaws is mass-market. I will add a correction in a future
>>> version.
>>
>> So is the market for office software, and games, and music players, and
>> web browsers, and finance software, and many other categories of
>> applications that have broad usage and appeal.
>
> We are talking about proprietary software.

Doesn't matter.  The software development\distribution method doesn't
dictate whether the market is "mass" or not.

>> Why can't you understand this?


>>
>>> To outsiders, that will reinforce my point that proprietary software
>>> is dying.
>>
>> If you continue to claim MS is the only or one of the few "mass market"
>> proprietary software companies around, you will reinforce that you are a
>> blithering idiot (there's no other way to say it).
>
> Many people won't disagree with that statement. Many remember Borland,
> etc.


What about them?  They're still around, and still selling proprietary
products: http://www.borland.com/

This is what we're talking about - you often make ignorant claims with
little or no research.

You recently claimed "if you go back like 15 years and grab a PC
Magazine and look through all the software companies, you will find most
are gone."

Got any evidence for this claim?  A good author would have researched it
before writing it.  I'm sure you thought Borland was one of them... whoops


Re: The bizarro claims of Keith Curtis Keith Curtis 5/9/11 6:31 PM
On May 9, 6:00 pm, DFS <nos...@dfs.com> wrote:

> What about them?  They're still around, and still selling proprietary
> products:http://www.borland.com/

They are Borland only in name. The products they provide are none of
the ones in the 1995 version of Borland. Had you noticed that before I
pointed it out?

Re: The bizarro claims of Keith Curtis DFS 5/9/11 6:47 PM
On 5/9/2011 5:46 PM, KeithCu wrote:
> On May 9, 12:25 pm, DFS<nos...@dfs.com>  wrote:
>>
>> True, I'm not very open-minded about Linux after seeing where it is 20
>> years after its introduction with its millions of contributors... but
>> that doesn't make your bizarro statements any less nutty.
>
> You are a nut so unqualified to diagnose.

OK, so we're both nuts.  Difference is, every cola reader isn't
challenging the validity or truthfulness of my statements.

>> This one is classic:
>> "if you read my writing not realizing all the thinking that went into
>> it, you may miss the points."
>
> Yes I put that in there because I found that you trolls weren't
> reading / understanding me and so I was having to repeat myself. Part
> of your trick is to not understand or not read stuff that shoots down
> your points.
>
> And because the criticisms many of you make are not the point of the
> sentence. If you think you've found a lie, it means you are probably
> missing the point of the sentence.

Maybe I am missing some points.  That's not my fault.


>> And this one is just plain ridiculous:
>> "It is a lot harder to succeed as a proprietary company. In fact it is
>> almost impossible."
>
> I was speaking in the long term about how proprietary desktop software
> is dead. So give that sentence another 20 years before you judge it
> false. It may come true so calling it ridiculous is premature.


I don't have to give that sentence 20 milliseconds before I judge it
idiotic.

And if you were speaking long-term, why didn't you say long-term?  You
always come behind and say "What I meant was..."

You could hedge a bit and say "In the future it will be harder to
succeed as a proprietary company selling desktop PC software" and then
as evidence show a bunch of open source successes that have caused
proprietary companies in the same market to fail over the last 5-10
years.  Problem is, you won't be able to do that because there aren't
any such examples (that I know of, and I follow this stuff every day for
years).  Not one.

For the last 20 years many proprietary desktop software companies have
been succeeding fantastically, and they'll continue to do so for the
next 20 years - regardless of the open source offerings out there.

Here are large software companies:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_largest_global_software_companies

Most of the companies on this page are totally proprietary.

For instance, SAP is a huge developer of proprietary ERP software, used
all over the world for decades.  $18B in revenue 2010, 23% revenue
market share, used in virtually every large corporation in the world.
Has server and desktop components.  You think some rinky-dink open
source ERP crapware is going to beat them at their own game in the next
20 years?  You're out of your mind.

And then there's AutoDesk, and Cyberlink, and Intuit, and Symantec, and
Punch Software, and id Software, and too many to mention.

You know, you're going to make a damn fool of yourself if you publish
that statement without serious disclaimers and supporting evidence.

Re: The bizarro claims of Keith Curtis DFS 5/9/11 7:22 PM


Yes, I saw the wiki entry earlier:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borland

Again, so what?  Companies rise and fall and merge.  Borland is still
around.  Many of their original products still live on at Embarcadero
and Corel.  And all their current products are proprietary.

Aside: I used to LOVE Borland Paradox for Windows (the ObjectPAL
language anyway - the query facilities and file containerships were not
good).  In some ways it was better than MS Access\VBA.  I liked Quattro
Pro, too.  But Borland couldn't compete with Microsoft Office.

Re: The bizarro claims of Keith Curtis Keith Curtis 5/9/11 7:24 PM

I said neither long-term nor short-term. You are the one who has
proclaimed it false before considering timeframes.

Proprietary software on the desktop is dying. There is evidence all
around. You might not like my word choice, but that is less relevant.

I don't care at what pace it happens and some can stay around as
proprietary and irrelevant. IBM has lots of proprietary software I
don't use.

There are reasons why proprietary software is a flawed model. You
should know these arguments by now. If not, my book gives some
examples. Obviously servers change the situation as you can have
proprietary software on servers, but I am speaking of the PC. Debian
has billions of dollars of software and it gets larger and better
every year. It is slow, but it is progress.

What is the ultimate in computing? It is something like Debian.
Microsoft has nothing like Debian on its plans. They just keep adding
features with their thousands and hope that Linux takes over slowly,
the hardware companies don't wake up, etc.

-Keith

Re: The bizarro claims of Keith Curtis Keith Curtis 5/9/11 7:33 PM


> If you continue to claim MS is the only or one of the few "mass market"
> proprietary software companies around, you will reinforce that you are a
> blithering idiot (there's no other way to say it).

Now that you agree the old Borland is not around anymore, my statement
is no longer something from a blithering idiot.

Borland's death is evidence that MS is one of the few mass market
companies remaining. You should consider this Borland a separate
company using that name because of the brand it gives.

I will think about explaining how Borland is still around, but that
all the old products are dead in a future version of the book. That is
more evidence to outsiders that my point is true.

I find it interesting that the evidence you use to refute my point
actually makes my argument stronger. Keep up with the refutations ;-)

-Keith

Re: The bizarro claims of Keith Curtis DFS 5/9/11 8:03 PM
On 5/9/2011 10:33 PM, KeithCu wrote:
> On May 9, 7:22 pm, DFS<nos...@dfs.com>  wrote:
>> On 5/9/2011 9:31 PM, KeithCu wrote:
>>
>>> On May 9, 6:00 pm, DFS<nos...@dfs.com>    wrote:
>>
>>>> What about them?  They're still around, and still selling proprietary
>>>> products:http://www.borland.com/
>>
>>> They are Borland only in name. The products they provide are none of
>>> the ones in the 1995 version of Borland. Had you noticed that before I
>>> pointed it out?
>>
>> Yes, I saw the wiki entry earlier:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borland
>>
>> Again, so what?  Companies rise and fall and merge.  Borland is still
>> around.  Many of their original products still live on at Embarcadero
>> and Corel.  And all their current products are proprietary.
>>
>> Aside: I used to LOVE Borland Paradox for Windows (the ObjectPAL
>> language anyway - the query facilities and file containerships were not
>> good).  In some ways it was better than MS Access\VBA.  I liked Quattro
>> Pro, too.  But Borland couldn't compete with Microsoft Office.
>
>
>> If you continue to claim MS is the only or one of the few "mass market"
>> proprietary software companies around, you will reinforce that you are a
>> blithering idiot (there's no other way to say it).
>
> Now that you agree the old Borland is not around anymore, my statement
> is no longer something from a blithering idiot.

Sure it is.  Any company that sells proprietary apps into a "mass
market" category of PC software is a "mass-market" proprietary PC
software company.  There are dozens and dozens of such companies selling
music instruction software, and tax software, and video editing
software, and office suites, and finance software, etc.  Just visit a
MicroCenter.

MS is the largest proprietary software company, but that's a different
issue.

As for "old": the old IBM is not around anymore, either.  Nor is the old
VALinux.  How about the old RedHat?  Gone.  The new RedHat makes 1/2
their profit on non-software activities.  The old MandrakeSoft is not
around anymore.


http://articles.sfgate.com/2001-01-18/business/17580566_1_va-linux-todd-schull-ipo

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandriva

http://saviorodrigues.wordpress.com/2009/03/09/is-red-hat-a-software-firm-or-financial-institution/

> Borland's death is evidence that MS is one of the few mass market
> companies remaining.

That sentence contains 2 lies.  Can you find them?


> You should consider this Borland a separate
> company using that name because of the brand it gives.

Why would I do that?  Companies merge and are sold and drop and replace
models and product lines all the time.

> I will think about explaining how Borland is still around, but that
> all the old products are dead

You can explain all you want, but it will still be a flat-out lie.  I'll
leave the research to you.


 > in a future version of the book. That is
> more evidence to outsiders that my point is true.

You do that.  Linux wackjobs always use samples of one.  Reasonable
people see right through it.

> I find it interesting that the evidence you use to refute my point
> actually makes my argument stronger. Keep up with the refutations ;-)

I will.  Keep up with your blithering idiocy.


Re: The bizarro claims of Keith Curtis DFS 5/9/11 8:23 PM
On 5/9/2011 10:24 PM, KeithCu wrote:
> On May 9, 6:47 pm, DFS<nos...@dfs.com>  wrote:
>> On 5/9/2011 5:46 PM, KeithCu wrote:
>>
>>> On May 9, 12:25 pm, DFS<nos...@dfs.com>    wrote:
>>
>>>> True, I'm not very open-minded about Linux after seeing where it is 20
>>>> years after its introduction with its millions of contributors... but
>>>> that doesn't make your bizarro statements any less nutty.
>>
>>> You are a nut so unqualified to diagnose.
>>
>> OK, so we're both nuts.  Difference is, every cola reader isn't
>> challenging the validity or truthfulness of my statements.

But everybody challenges yours (except for that pathetic suckup, Linosuck).


>>>> This one is classic:
>>>> "if you read my writing not realizing all the thinking that went into
>>>> it, you may miss the points."
>>
>>> Yes I put that in there because I found that you trolls weren't
>>> reading / understanding me and so I was having to repeat myself. Part
>>> of your trick is to not understand or not read stuff that shoots down
>>> your points.
>>
>>> And because the criticisms many of you make are not the point of the
>>> sentence. If you think you've found a lie, it means you are probably
>>> missing the point of the sentence.
>>
>> Maybe I am missing some points.  That's not my fault.


It's your bullshit writing that cause readers to not understand what
you're trying to say:

"In actuality, on a daily basis, team members struggle to refine a
product to make it better achieve that original vision. This refining
activity requires lots of little work items with each step requiring a
tiny bit of visionary insight moving the product forward in support of
that big idea. In creating free products that anyone can contribute
to, progress toward big visionary efforts will happen faster."

huh?


>>>> And this one is just plain ridiculous:
>>>> "It is a lot harder to succeed as a proprietary company. In fact it is
>>>> almost impossible."
>>
>>> I was speaking in the long term about how proprietary desktop software
>>> is dead. So give that sentence another 20 years before you judge it
>>> false. It may come true so calling it ridiculous is premature.
>>
>> I don't have to give that sentence 20 milliseconds before I judge it
>> idiotic.
>>
>> And if you were speaking long-term, why didn't you say long-term?  You
>> always come behind and say "What I meant was..."
>
> I said neither long-term nor short-term. You are the one who has
> proclaimed it false before considering timeframes.

It's false in the short- and long-term.  You snipped everything else I
wrote before, so here it comes right back:

=======================================================================

You could hedge a bit and say "In the future it will be harder to
succeed as a proprietary company selling desktop PC software" and then
as evidence show a bunch of open source successes that have caused
proprietary companies in the same market to fail over the last 5-10
years.  Problem is, you won't be able to do that because there aren't
any such examples (that I know of, and I follow this stuff every day for
years).  Not one.

For the last 20 years many proprietary desktop software companies have
been succeeding fantastically, and they'll continue to do so for the
next 20 years - regardless of the open source offerings out there.

Here are large software companies:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_largest_global_software_companies

Most of the companies on this page are totally proprietary.

For instance, SAP is a huge developer of proprietary ERP software, used
all over the world for decades.  $18B in revenue 2010, 23% revenue
market share, used in virtually every large corporation in the world.
Has server and desktop components.  You think some rinky-dink open
source ERP crapware is going to beat them at their own game in the next
20 years?  You're out of your mind.

And then there's AutoDesk, and Cyberlink, and Intuit, and Symantec, and
Punch Software, and id Software, and too many to mention.
=======================================================================

See how you ran?  I can't blame you - I just shut down a good chunk of
your book right there.

> Proprietary software on the desktop is dying. There is evidence all
> around.

Show me some.  But try and show me more than 1 app.  Show us overall
industry revenues, or lots of failing companies, etc.

In a few cases the Internet has moved some processing from the desktop
to a server out there somewhere (online tax apps) but it's still
proprietary code executed and interacted with on your desktop.

> You might not like my word choice, but that is less relevant.

Whatever word you choose will probably be very wrong.  Several cola
morons have said "the desktop is dying" and "MS is dying", and
"Proprietary software on the desktop is dying" is no less idiotic and
unsupportable.

> I don't care at what pace it happens and some can stay around as
> proprietary and irrelevant. IBM has lots of proprietary software I
> don't use.
>
> There are reasons why proprietary software is a flawed model.

In your opinion.  Very few agree with you, as evidenced by the overall
lack of adoption of open source software.

And you, for instance, spent 11 years as a proprietary developer, but
have yet to become an open source developer.  What's stopping you?

> You
> should know these arguments by now. If not, my book gives some
> examples. Obviously servers change the situation as you can have
> proprietary software on servers, but I am speaking of the PC. Debian
> has billions of dollars of software and it gets larger and better
> every year. It is slow, but it is progress.

Windows and proprietary software get better every year as well.  There
are exceptions, of course, but open source is usually playing catchup to
proprietary systems.

> What is the ultimate in computing? It is something like Debian.

Sez you.  Barely anyone agrees.  Barely anyone uses it.

Debian distributes many small piles of crap in their "stable packages"
collection.  Little one-off perl and python scripts that somebody hacked
up in a few days.  They apparently will accept anything into their
repos.  Too strange.


> Microsoft has nothing like Debian on its plans.

I sure hope not.

> They just keep adding
> features with their thousands and hope that Linux takes over slowly,
> the hardware companies don't wake up, etc.

Linux isn't taking over MS's markets slowly, or quickly, or middle-speed.

And why should hardware companies "wake up" and help Linux (drivers and
specs), when it won't return an equivalent amount of help to the
hardware vendor (revenue)?

Re: The bizarro claims of Keith Curtis flatfish+++ 5/9/11 8:26 PM
On Mon, 09 May 2011 23:23:29 -0400, DFS wrote:

> On 5/9/2011 10:24 PM, KeithCu wrote:
>> On May 9, 6:47 pm, DFS<nos...@dfs.com>  wrote:
>>> On 5/9/2011 5:46 PM, KeithCu wrote:
>>>
>>>> On May 9, 12:25 pm, DFS<nos...@dfs.com>    wrote:
>>>
>>>>> True, I'm not very open-minded about Linux after seeing where it is 20
>>>>> years after its introduction with its millions of contributors... but
>>>>> that doesn't make your bizarro statements any less nutty.
>>>
>>>> You are a nut so unqualified to diagnose.
>>>
>>> OK, so we're both nuts.  Difference is, every cola reader isn't
>>> challenging the validity or truthfulness of my statements.
>
> But everybody challenges yours (except for that pathetic suckup, Linosuck).

It's true!!

If Keith Curtis has done one thing with his posts here in COLA, he has
brought both sides together in agreement over one thing.

His idiocy.

Except for Liamutt of course, but he is pathetic.


--
flatfish+++
Please visit our hall of Linux idiots.
http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/

Watching Linux Fail:
http://limuxwatch.blogspot.com/
 
Desktop Linux: The Dream Is Dead
"By the time Microsoft released the Windows 7 beta
in January 2009, Linux had clearly lost its chance at desktop glory."
http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/207999/desktop_linux_the_dream_is_dead.html

Re: The bizarro claims of Keith Curtis Hadron 5/9/11 8:36 PM
Marti Van Lin <ml2mst@dontevenbother.invalid> writes:

> Op 10-05-11 00:43, KeithCu schreef:
>
>> On May 9, 3:27 pm, Hadron<hadronqu...@gmail.com>  wrote:
>>> What lies?
>>
>> I have documented them along the way in the discussion.
>>
>>>
>>> He has correctly pointed out that you're an arrogant, puffed up moron
>>> who writes total bullshit with zero to back you up.
>
> *SPLORF*
>
> Oh dear, the irony :-D

Feel free to link to such sMarti. You wont. You will run and hide.


>
>> I'm only arrogant to lying bullies like you.
>>
>> Saying I have zero to back it up is a lie. I have talked to many Linux
>> people and done a lot of reading and research.

Re: The bizarro claims of Keith Curtis Hadron 5/9/11 8:37 PM
KeithCu <kei...@gmail.com> writes:

You might have talked to a lot of "Linux people" but what has that go to
do with your nonsense. You could talk to 10,000,000 and it wont make
your proclamations any the more correct.

There is a reason that not even ONE person here even remotely agrees
with you. And the reason is you're a nutcase.


Re: The bizarro claims of Keith Curtis Hadron 5/9/11 8:40 PM
KeithCu <kei...@gmail.com> writes:

When i write something like that its because you're an arrogant puffed up


moron who writes total bullshit with zero to back you up.

Re: The bizarro claims of Keith Curtis Hadron 5/9/11 8:41 PM
KeithCu <kei...@gmail.com> writes:

Yes, its called a business. They adapt.

Seriously, are you retarded?

Re: The bizarro claims of Keith Curtis Hadron 5/9/11 8:44 PM
KeithCu <kei...@gmail.com> writes:


LOL! Stop!

Now I KNOW you're trolling. You can't be as dense as your posting makes
you appear!!!!

Re: The bizarro claims of Keith Curtis flatfish+++ 5/9/11 8:53 PM

This may very well be the best, most carefully planned and thought out
troll ever to grace COLA.

What a beauty!!

--
flatfish+++
Please visit our hall of Linux idiots.
http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/

Watching Linux Fail:
http://limuxwatch.blogspot.com/
 
Desktop Linux: The Dream Is Dead
"By the time Microsoft released the Windows 7 beta
in January 2009, Linux had clearly lost its chance at desktop glory."
http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/207999/desktop_linux_the_dream_is_dead.html

Re: The bizarro claims of Keith Curtis Hadron 5/9/11 8:56 PM
KeithCu <kei...@gmail.com> writes:

Huh? What on EARTH are you gibbering about now?

If you didnt understand what I mean by a non-sequitur you only need ask.

I'll assume you didnt. I will explain in baby talk for you:-

You mentioned that there is a huge market for virus scanners etc.

You then went on to suggest that that fact indicates to others that
proprietary SW is dying.

It does no such thing. There is ZERO link between a market for virus
scanners etc and your ridiculous claim about proprietary SW
dying. None. Zero.

In short you have, once again, proven yourself to be a clueless idiot.

My bet is that you're Jed or related to him.

No wonder the rest of the "advocates" (except for Creepy but he'd suck
up to a corpse if he thought it wouldn't reject him) have forsaken you.


Re: The bizarro claims of Keith Curtis Hadron 5/9/11 9:01 PM
flatfish+++ <flat...@marianatrench.com> writes:

It's breathtaking in its audacity and scale!

Humiliating himself so much and wasting so much time on a "book" no one
wants to read just to get people hopping up and down and calling him an
idiot! The best is Creepy Chris Ahlstrom sucking up to him though! I bet
the Keith Cu troll laughs himself to sleep with that one!

Re: The bizarro claims of Keith Curtis flatfish+++ 5/9/11 9:03 PM

That even surprised me.
I didn't think creepy Chris Ahlstrom could sink any lower than
supporting 7 and Rex but I was wrong.

Obviously Liarmutt = Chris Ahsltrom never bothered to read the threads
because if he did, he would know how screwed up Keith is.


 
--
flatfish+++
Please visit our hall of Linux idiots.
http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/

Watching Linux Fail:
http://limuxwatch.blogspot.com/
 
Desktop Linux: The Dream Is Dead
"By the time Microsoft released the Windows 7 beta
in January 2009, Linux had clearly lost its chance at desktop glory."
http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/207999/desktop_linux_the_dream_is_dead.html

Re: The bizarro claims of Keith Curtis William Poaster 5/10/11 3:24 AM
Marti Van Lin wrote:

> Op 10-05-11 00:43, KeithCu schreef:
>
>> On May 9, 3:27 pm, Hadron<hadronqu...@gmail.com>  wrote:
>>> What lies?
>>
>> I have documented them along the way in the discussion.
>>
>>>
>>> He has correctly pointed out that you're an arrogant, puffed up moron
>>> who writes total bullshit with zero to back you up.
>
> *SPLORF*
>
> Oh dear, the irony :-D

Palpable, isn't it! LOL

<snip>

--
A bad random number generator: 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 4.33e+67, 1, 1, 1


"Microsoft has vast resources, literally billions of dollars in cash, or liquid assets reserves.
Microsoft is an incredibly successful empire built on the premise of market dominance with low-quality goods."
-- Former White House adviser Richard A. Clarke --

The crux of the matter amicus_curious 5/10/11 5:10 AM

"KeithCu" <kei...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:46e1de13-d4a5-4a53-9f65-f74acf412b97@k27g2000pri.googlegroups.com...

>
> Free software will win eventually, especially for "interesting"
> software. I hope that doesn't offend people.
>
I do need to commend you on having produced such a massive tome, Keith.  You
do elaborate on your thesis far more deeply than the average COLA poster.

I think that I have uncovered the heart of the matter, though, and can
explain some of the reasons why we Microsoft supporters or anti-GPLers or
proprietary software advocates, whatever category you wish to assign,
dismiss your ideas.  When you say:

"Software is a science: you reason, you create a hypothesis in the form of
source code, and then you test the hypothesis by running it on a computer."

you, like the Stallman quote before it, totally miss the meaning of what you
are about.

If some entity such as Microsoft creates a software program, for example MS
Word, and keeps it proprietary, they are not affecting Computer Science at
all.  They are not doing any of the things you say in regard to "Software"
as you claim, rather, if anything, they are doing something in the field of
"word processing".  What they do is self-manifest, that is they provide some
useful features that are seen as productivity improvements by the consumers
who pay them for the product from which they derive that beneficial use.

Any other company is free, subject to patent restrictions if any, to copy
what they have done in terms of the ideas presented and "stand on their
shoulders" to provide even greater benefits to the same consumer audience.
Such has been the history of office automation and whether it is open source
or proprietary, office software vendors have matched one another's efforts
over the past 30 years.

Software as a science is served by the evolution of computer science as an
academic discipline and is divorced from any individual program.  If you are
concerned about how to do something or want to invent some new method of
implementation, study the science, not someone else's detailed rendering.
If you just want to avoid paying the previous programmer for his work
product, too bad.  There is plenty of opportunity for you to collude with
others who want to do the same and you can stand on each others shoulders or
even toes to your heart's content.

But don't make this into some sort of brotherhood of man issue.  A word
processor or even an operating system is simply the result of some detailed
and difficult work effort by someone who is motivated to do the work.
People will continue to have good ideas and want to capitalize on their own
cleverness.  That need is not in anyway doomed by their insistence on
keeping their work to themselves.
 

Re: The crux of the matter Keith Curtis 5/10/11 5:47 AM
On May 10, 5:10 am, "amicus_curious" <a...@sti.net> wrote:

>
> If some entity such as Microsoft creates a software program, for example MS
> Word, and keeps it proprietary, they are not affecting Computer Science at
> all.

It is an interesting question whether word processing is a science.
But: how much science is in the Linux kernel?

I realize anyway that a word processor can seem a stretch. Surely
computer vision recognition is more of a science.

However, if you deconstruct a word processor, you can find scientific
things inside it. I worked on text processing for 5 years at MS and it
felt no less scientific then any other code I worked on. Grammar
checking requires AI. Font renderers do fancy math. Efficient
automatic table layout requires some clever work. There is big and
little science all over the place.

Futhermore, once it is written and made free and good, we can all use
it. So whether an office program is a science, if we get various
companies and governments to contribute to it, we can have something
good. Maybe ODF becomes used for e-government, so that governments
have a reason to contribute to LibreOffice.

The category of science is just a general one. There are other reasons
to write free software. There are so many governments and publicly
funded institutions that are not contributing to free software.

Regards,

-Keith

Re: The crux of the matter Hadron 5/10/11 6:13 AM
KeithCu <kei...@gmail.com> writes:

> On May 10, 5:10 am, "amicus_curious" <a...@sti.net> wrote:
>
>>
>> If some entity such as Microsoft creates a software program, for example MS
>> Word, and keeps it proprietary, they are not affecting Computer Science at
>> all.
>
> It is an interesting question whether word processing is a science.
> But: how much science is in the Linux kernel?
>
> I realize anyway that a word processor can seem a stretch. Surely
> computer vision recognition is more of a science.
>
> However, if you deconstruct a word processor, you can find scientific
> things inside it. I worked on text processing for 5 years at MS and it
> felt no less scientific then any other code I worked on. Grammar
> checking requires AI. Font renderers do fancy math. Efficient
> automatic table layout requires some clever work. There is big and
> little science all over the place.
>
> Futhermore, once it is written and made free and good, we can all use
> it.

Err yes, and why people dont make their code free whe involved in selling
SW. Why should they work hard for idiots like you to filch it? I can see
MS are well shot of you.


Re: The crux of the matter amicus_curious 5/10/11 9:40 AM

"KeithCu" <kei...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:15184a8f-390c-46da-8f27-f9be6fea942e@b7g2000prg.googlegroups.com...

> On May 10, 5:10 am, "amicus_curious" <a...@sti.net> wrote:
>
>>
>> If some entity such as Microsoft creates a software program, for example
>> MS
>> Word, and keeps it proprietary, they are not affecting Computer Science
>> at
>> all.
>
> It is an interesting question whether word processing is a science.
> But: how much science is in the Linux kernel?
>
None, I would say.  An OS is, at its core, a collection of useful functions
along with a task scheduler and state manager.

> I realize anyway that a word processor can seem a stretch. Surely
> computer vision recognition is more of a science.
>
> However, if you deconstruct a word processor, you can find scientific
> things inside it. I worked on text processing for 5 years at MS and it
> felt no less scientific then any other code I worked on. Grammar
> checking requires AI. Font renderers do fancy math. Efficient
> automatic table layout requires some clever work. There is big and
> little science all over the place.
>
But that "science" is entirely independent of the code used in any specific
implementation.  The ideas transcend the code and offer anyone who wants to
advance the "science" the opportunity to do so.  Access to source code
serves little purpose beyond saving someone the time needed to replicate it.
Since the end result is to provide some sort of beneficial use that users
should be willing to pay for, it seems pointless to deny the original author
the fruits of his labor.  There is certainly enough sample code available to
teach anyone how to code some particular function.  The value to an end user
comes from having an internally consistent and complete set of functions
provided by some specific implementation that remains compatible with
successor versions so that the user's prior investment in time, money, and
experience is preserved.

> Futhermore, once it is written and made free and good, we can all use
> it. So whether an office program is a science, if we get various
> companies and governments to contribute to it, we can have something
> good. Maybe ODF becomes used for e-government, so that governments
> have a reason to contribute to LibreOffice.
>
I think that you get to the core of the controversy here.  In the case of
Linux on the desktop, for example, there are perhaps thousands of actual
"contributors" and fewer than hundreds of effective contributors.  But there
are tens of millions of users, based on the 1% claim, so there are 99.9% of
the user population that can be classed as freeloaders who contribute
nothing.  Certainly the freeloaders appreciate the advantage of having
no-cost software to use, but that is hardly fair to the suppliers who may
not be interested in remuneration, but are being used nonetheless.

> The category of science is just a general one. There are other reasons
> to write free software. There are so many governments and publicly
> funded institutions that are not contributing to free software.
>
Governments and other institutions pay for services rendered just as
commercial companies do.  Whether that is in the form of license fees that
come along with some amount of support at no extra charge or in the form of
support contracts outside of any license restrictions seems rather
artificial.  People pay for what they receive from commercial companies, Red
Hat and Microsoft both.

Individual suppliers of support services for Linux outside of companies like
Red Hat or Novell actually do a substantial disservice to their customers to
the extent that the support can vanish overnight with the demise of the
support supplier.  Saying that the customer is "free" to find someone else
to do the work is not very consoling to anyone who was dependent on such a
service and suddenly left high and dry by its removal.  Promoting open
source proliferates this danger to the customer and serves to hide the
danger behind a mythical mask of "community".
 

Re: The crux of the matter Snit 5/10/11 9:43 AM
KeithCu stated in post
15184a8f-390c-46da-8f27-f9be6fea942e@b7g2000prg.googlegroups.com on 5/10/11
5:47 AM:

> On May 10, 5:10 am, "amicus_curious" <a...@sti.net> wrote:
>
>>
>> If some entity such as Microsoft creates a software program, for example MS
>> Word, and keeps it proprietary, they are not affecting Computer Science at
>> all.
>
> It is an interesting question whether word processing is a science.

There is a lot of science that goes into the usability side of it, if
nothing else.  There is also art here, just to be clear.

> But: how much science is in the Linux kernel?
>
> I realize anyway that a word processor can seem a stretch. Surely
> computer vision recognition is more of a science.
>
> However, if you deconstruct a word processor, you can find scientific
> things inside it. I worked on text processing for 5 years at MS and it
> felt no less scientific then any other code I worked on. Grammar
> checking requires AI. Font renderers do fancy math. Efficient
> automatic table layout requires some clever work. There is big and
> little science all over the place.

Agreed: as there is in, say, material science - but companies often keep
such things to themselves.  Not all science is shared.


 
> Futhermore, once it is written and made free and good, we can all use
> it. So whether an office program is a science, if we get various
> companies and governments to contribute to it, we can have something
> good. Maybe ODF becomes used for e-government, so that governments
> have a reason to contribute to LibreOffice.
>
> The category of science is just a general one. There are other reasons
> to write free software. There are so many governments and publicly
> funded institutions that are not contributing to free software.

And there are many companies which do not contribute to music, either - even
those who play it in their offices.  So?

--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]


Re: The crux of the matter Hadron 5/10/11 11:28 AM
"amicus_curious" <ac...@sti.net> writes:

> "KeithCu" <kei...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:15184a8f-390c-46da-8f27-f9be6fea942e@b7g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>> On May 10, 5:10 am, "amicus_curious" <a...@sti.net> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> If some entity such as Microsoft creates a software program, for example MS
>>> Word, and keeps it proprietary, they are not affecting Computer Science at
>>> all.
>>
>> It is an interesting question whether word processing is a science.
>> But: how much science is in the Linux kernel?
>>
> None, I would say.  An OS is, at its core, a collection of useful functions
> along with a task scheduler and state manager.
>

And you would of course be wrong. You have very narrow definitions which
affect your processing of information. I find this surprising as you are
lucid and seemingly intelligent.

There is a heap of science in something like the Linux kernel.

Re: The crux of the matter amicus_curious 5/10/11 12:39 PM

"Hadron" <hadro...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:2fmxiul89s.fsf@news.eternal-september.org...

So what "science" might that be, Hadron?  And how, by "standing on its
shoulders" would you be able to advance it?

Re: The crux of the matter Snit 5/10/11 12:49 PM
amicus_curious stated in post
4dc99514$0$2340$ec3e...@unlimited.usenetmonster.com on 5/10/11 12:39 PM:

<http://goo.gl/g7uli>

That might be of benefit to you.

--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]


Re: The crux of the matter Hadron 5/10/11 1:43 PM
"amicus_curious" <ac...@sti.net> writes:

You're joking right? You dont think the work that has gone into
schedulers, locking etc is a science that is built upon? You never heard
of Computer Science degrees?

Please. Save it for Snit.

Re: The crux of the matter DFS 5/10/11 1:45 PM

A heap of computer science, of course.  Found in any sufficiently
complex OS kernel.

"Understanding the Linux Kernel"
http://oreilly.com/catalog/9780596000028#toc

Chapter 1 Introduction
Chapter 2 Memory Addressing
Chapter 3 Processes
Chapter 4 Interrupts and Exceptions
Chapter 5 Timing Measurements
Chapter 6 Memory Management
Chapter 7 Process Address Space
Chapter 8 System Calls
Chapter 9 Signals
Chapter 10 Process Scheduling
Chapter 11 Kernel Synchronization
Chapter 12 The Virtual Filesystem
Chapter 13 Managing I/O Devices
Chapter 14 Disk Caches
Chapter 15 Accessing Regular Files
Chapter 16 Swapping: Methods for Freeing Memory
Chapter 17 The Ext2 Filesystem
Chapter 18 Process Communication
Chapter 19 Program Execution

Re: The crux of the matter amicus_curious 5/10/11 2:37 PM

"DFS" <nos...@dfs.com> wrote in message
news:iqc85b$o3s$1@speranza.aioe.org...So how is the source code necessary for understanding that?  Isn't it
self-evident from the computer science itself?  The science comes from a
description of the methods and theories, not from the implementation.
KeithCu's thesis seems to be that any such software work is an unfinished
effort that can be built upon as time marches on and that the best way to
effect that change will come from having the source code available to
everyone.  That is sort of romantic, but I think it is nonsense.  From an
engineering POV a program is a product that must stand on its own.  Whether
it can be successfully modified in the future to improve its utility or
whether it needs to be re-done from scratch is just a decision trade-off
that should be based on which course might have a better return on the
effort involved.  In some cases it may very well be the case that no change
is even necessary.

The point here is that any source code implementation of a product such as
Windows or Linux or MS Word or OO or anything else is merely a complete work
just as a motion picture or a hit song or a best selling novel.  The
"science" upon which it is built comes from a statement and proof of the
methods and principles involved, not from the work itself.

Re: The crux of the matter amicus_curious 5/10/11 2:44 PM

"Hadron" <hadro...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:mr1v06l20t.fsf@news.eternal-september.org...

Snit is a fool who does not have sufficient education to answer the
question.  You have not given an answer either.

Let me frame it more succinctly for you:  The principles defined by computer
science define the elements that an OS Kernel has to supply.  Other than
saving some cloner a small amount of work, what new, previously unknown
principle of computer science lies hidden in the code that you cannot obtain
for Microsoft Windows?  Or has been revealed by the open source of Linux?
You should at least be able to describe the effect of this secret even if
you cannot know its implementation details.

I don't think that any such revelation exists for such a thing.

Re: The crux of the matter Hadron 5/10/11 2:54 PM
"amicus_curious" <ac...@sti.net> writes:

You're joking right?

You don't see the value of the source as scientific documentation?

Re: The crux of the matter Snit 5/10/11 2:57 PM
amicus_curious stated in post
4dc9b262$0$2432$ec3e...@unlimited.usenetmonster.com on 5/10/11 2:44 PM:

...


>>> So what "science" might that be, Hadron?  And how, by "standing on its
>>> shoulders" would you be able to advance it?
>>
>> You're joking right? You dont think the work that has gone into
>> schedulers, locking etc is a science that is built upon? You never heard
>> of Computer Science degrees?
>>
>> Please. Save it for Snit.
>
> Snit is a fool who does not have sufficient education to answer the
> question.  You have not given an answer either.

Having nothing of value to say and no way to counter ideas he does not like,
amicus instead decides to just belittle others.

Got it.  

Really, why not *try* to focus on *topics* and leave your attempts at
feeling better by putting others down to yourself?  Have you *no*
self-respect?

> Let me frame it more succinctly for you:  The principles defined by computer
> science define the elements that an OS Kernel has to supply.  Other than
> saving some cloner a small amount of work, what new, previously unknown
> principle of computer science lies hidden in the code that you cannot obtain
> for Microsoft Windows?  Or has been revealed by the open source of Linux?
> You should at least be able to describe the effect of this secret even if
> you cannot know its implementation details.
>
> I don't think that any such revelation exists for such a thing.

I already gave you a link to a lot of scholarly research done based on the
Linux kernel.  I admit I was not specific - do you need me to be?  I am
happy to help you more if you need it.  Even with you belittling me... I am
a very kind and patient person.


--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]


Re: The crux of the matter amicus_curious 5/10/11 4:16 PM

"Hadron" <hadro...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:tnsjsmjk61.fsf@news.eternal-september.org...

Documentation?  What is documented in that way?  Code is simply
implementation.  Commentary in the source is traditionally provided to
explain what is being implemented in the code, but the code itself is pretty
universally regarded as a poor way to document anything.

Do you have a computer science degree yourself?  Do you develop software?
You don't seem to understand very much about the process.

You can answer negatively by refusing to provide an answer, of course.

Re: The crux of the matter DFS 5/10/11 4:20 PM
On 5/10/2011 5:37 PM, amicus_curious wrote:

>>> So what "science" might that be, Hadron? And how, by "standing on its
>>> shoulders" would you be able to advance it?
>>
>> A heap of computer science, of course. Found in any sufficiently
>> complex OS kernel.
>>
> So how is the source code necessary for understanding that?

It's not necessary, but that wasn't your question.

> Isn't it self-evident from the computer science itself?
> The science comes from a
> description of the methods and theories, not from the implementation.

Sure.  But the source code contains and reveals a successful, working
implementation of the science.

> KeithCu's thesis seems to be that any such software work is an
> unfinished effort that can be built upon as time marches on and that the
> best way to effect that change will come from having the source code
> available to everyone. That is sort of romantic, but I think it is
> nonsense.

I wouldn't call it nonsense, since open source at least allows people to
learn.  And most open source products do show improvements over time.

But I agree, open source has not proven to be nearly the successful
development method various "advocates" claim it is (or will be, in the
case of KeithCu).

> From an engineering POV a program is a product that must stand
> on its own. Whether it can be successfully modified in the future to
> improve its utility or whether it needs to be re-done from scratch is
> just a decision trade-off that should be based on which course might
> have a better return on the effort involved.  In some cases it may very
 > well be the case that no change is even necessary.


Not sure what your point is.  You seem to trivialize the availability of
source code.  MS would suffer disastrously if its source was lost.

And what program has ever been "redone from scratch"?


> The point here is that any source code implementation of a product such
> as Windows or Linux or MS Word or OO or anything else is merely a
> complete work just as a motion picture or a hit song or a best selling
> novel. The "science" upon which it is built comes from a statement and
> proof of the methods and principles involved, not from the work itself.

The product - whether in binary or source form - contains and reveals
and validates the methods and principles which constitute computer
science.  Your claim that there is "no science in the Linux kernel" is
extremely bogus.  Ridiculous, really.

Re: The crux of the matter Snit 5/10/11 4:29 PM
amicus_curious stated in post
4dc9c803$0$2400$ec3e...@unlimited.usenetmonster.com on 5/10/11 4:16 PM:

>>>> A heap of computer science, of course.  Found in any sufficiently
>>>> complex OS
>>>> kernel.
>>>>
>>> So how is the source code necessary for understanding that?  Isn't it
>>> self-evident from the computer science itself?  The science comes from a
>>> description of the methods and theories, not from the implementation.
>>
>> You're joking right?
>>
>> You don't see the value of the source as scientific documentation?
>
> Documentation?  What is documented in that way?  Code is simply
> implementation.  

One: in some ways code is self-documenting.
Two: code *also* includes "real" documentation / comments.

> Commentary in the source is traditionally provided to explain what is being
> implemented in the code, but the code itself is pretty universally regarded as
> a poor way to document anything.

It is a perfect document as to how something was coded.

> Do you have a computer science degree yourself?  Do you develop software?
> You don't seem to understand very much about the process.

You misunderstood his comments.  Clearly.

> You can answer negatively by refusing to provide an answer, of course.

But you, apparently, cannot focus on the topic long enough to stop speaking
poorly of others.  This says a lot about you.

--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]


Re: The crux of the matter Hadron 5/10/11 4:31 PM
"amicus_curious" <ac...@sti.net> writes:

> "Hadron" <hadro...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:tnsjsmjk61.fsf@news.eternal-september.org...
>>> So how is the source code necessary for understanding that?  Isn't it
>>> self-evident from the computer science itself?  The science comes from a
>>> description of the methods and theories, not from the implementation.
>>
>> You're joking right?
>>
>> You don't see the value of the source as scientific documentation?
>
> Documentation?  What is documented in that way?  Code is simply
> implementation.

"simply implementation" : almost Keith'esque in its stupidity.

> Commentary in the source is traditionally provided to explain what is being
> implemented in the code, but the code itself is pretty universally regarded as a
> poor way to document anything.

What total and utter nonsense. Over documenting code is considered bad
in most projects : the code can and is good documentation for the
*competent programmer*.

It's why you will find only sparse documentation in a quality code base
like the Linux code base. People capable of maintaining it dont need to
be told that "we add one to the integer i" which it seems you might
need. This increment being, of course, one component in a much more
complex piece of SW which has developed from CS principles and
implements and improves on many previous algorithms and implementations.

>
> Do you have a computer science degree yourself?  Do you develop software? You
> don't seem to understand very much about the process.

A have an EE degree with a large SW component and have been a
professional programmer at pretty much all levels for more than 20
years. Its how I know you're talking shit. Again. Not that I need to
prove anything here : anyone here that is a programmer will see you
haven't got a clue what you're talking about.

Re: The crux of the matter Keith Curtis 5/10/11 5:41 PM
On May 10, 9:40 am, "amicus_curious" <a...@sti.net> wrote:
>
> >> If some entity such as Microsoft creates a software program, for example
> >> MS
> >> Word, and keeps it proprietary, they are not affecting Computer Science
> >> at
> >> all.
>
> > It is an interesting question whether word processing is a science.
> > But: how much science is in the Linux kernel?
>
> None, I would say.  An OS is, at its core, a collection of useful functions
> along with a task scheduler and state manager.

I am sure Linus would say there is science in the Linux kernel, he
could point to the RCU as one example. People write papers about it,
study it like they study every other problem, etc. People write papers
about many aspects of the kernel: scheduling is very popular as well.

In fact, every single change involves the scientific act. Changing
software is a science.

So the point is that once you've done science and learned something
and made something better, if the codebase is useful to others, make
that change available.

Access to the source code is very important. The software is the
combined knowledge of all of that science, and you can use it on a
computer to do further science.


>
> > Futhermore, once it is written and made free and good, we can all use
> > it. So whether an office program is a science, if we get various
> > companies and governments to contribute to it, we can have something
> > good. Maybe ODF becomes used for e-government, so that governments
> > have a reason to contribute to LibreOffice.
>
> I think that you get to the core of the controversy here.  In the case of
> Linux on the desktop, for example, there are perhaps thousands of actual
> "contributors" and fewer than hundreds of effective contributors.  But there
> are tens of millions of users, based on the 1% claim, so there are 99.9% of
> the user population that can be classed as freeloaders who contribute
> nothing.  Certainly the freeloaders appreciate the advantage of having
> no-cost software to use, but that is hardly fair to the suppliers who may
> not be interested in remuneration, but are being used nonetheless.

Some contribute to Wikipedia and some don't. We have more people than
we need. We just need some to work together.


>
> Individual suppliers of support services for Linux outside of companies like
> Red Hat or Novell actually do a substantial disservice to their customers to
> the extent that the support can vanish overnight with the demise of the
> support supplier.  Saying that the customer is "free" to find someone else
> to do the work is not very consoling to anyone who was dependent on such a
> service and suddenly left high and dry by its removal.  Promoting open
> source proliferates this danger to the customer and serves to hide the
> danger behind a mythical mask of "community".

There can be many support providers. Dell could support Linux.
Software is moving to a service business, so they won't all disappear.

-Keith

Re: The crux of the matter Snit 5/10/11 5:51 PM
KeithCu stated in post
4bf2f81b-9d1e-4c19-a331-6b976d4d090a@r33g2000prh.googlegroups.com on 5/10/11
5:41 PM:

> On May 10, 9:40 am, "amicus_curious" <a...@sti.net> wrote:
>>
>>>> If some entity such as Microsoft creates a software program, for example
>>>> MS
>>>> Word, and keeps it proprietary, they are not affecting Computer Science
>>>> at
>>>> all.
>>
>>> It is an interesting question whether word processing is a science.
>>> But: how much science is in the Linux kernel?
>>
>> None, I would say.  An OS is, at its core, a collection of useful functions
>> along with a task scheduler and state manager.
>
> I am sure Linus would say there is science in the Linux kernel, he
> could point to the RCU as one example. People write papers about it,
> study it like they study every other problem, etc. People write papers
> about many aspects of the kernel: scheduling is very popular as well.
>
> In fact, every single change involves the scientific act. Changing
> software is a science.
>
> So the point is that once you've done science and learned something
> and made something better, if the codebase is useful to others, make
> that change available.

As a choice or as a mandate?  If you just respect those who make that choice
I have no problem with it... if you think that should be mandated, I do.

...

>> Individual suppliers of support services for Linux outside of companies like
>> Red Hat or Novell actually do a substantial disservice to their customers to
>> the extent that the support can vanish overnight with the demise of the
>> support supplier.  Saying that the customer is "free" to find someone else
>> to do the work is not very consoling to anyone who was dependent on such a
>> service and suddenly left high and dry by its removal.  Promoting open
>> source proliferates this danger to the customer and serves to hide the
>> danger behind a mythical mask of "community".
>
> There can be many support providers. Dell could support Linux.

Dell *does* support Linux.  <http://dell.com/linux> <http://linux.dell.com>

> Software is moving to a service business, so they won't all disappear.
>
> -Keith

--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]


Re: The crux of the matter Keith Curtis 5/10/11 6:24 PM
On May 10, 5:51 pm, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:

>
> As a choice or as a mandate?  If you just respect those who make that choice
> I have no problem with it... if you think that should be mandated, I do.

It is a choice by people and a mandate from public / government
funding.

>
> > There can be many support providers. Dell could support Linux.
>
> Dell *does* support Linux.  <http://dell.com/linux> <http://linux.dell.com>
>

Yes, I meant Dell could help someone if Novell disappeared.

-Keith

Re: The crux of the matter Snit 5/10/11 6:42 PM
KeithCu stated in post
e78e583a-b123-4609-b24d-43ec2a6928cc@k27g2000pri.googlegroups.com on 5/10/11
6:24 PM:

> On May 10, 5:51 pm, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> As a choice or as a mandate?  If you just respect those who make that choice
>> I have no problem with it... if you think that should be mandated, I do.
>
> It is a choice by people and a mandate from public / government
> funding.

I can see having government code, in most cases, made public.  I have no
problem with that.

But it is not like this means Company X is immoral for not giving its assets
away.  That part of your view is just baffling to me - how can you justify
it?


 
>>> There can be many support providers. Dell could support Linux.
>>
>> Dell *does* support Linux.  <http://dell.com/linux> <http://linux.dell.com>
>
> Yes, I meant Dell could help someone if Novell disappeared.

Huh?  I have no idea what you are even trying to say.  I suspect you do not,
either.


--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]


Re: The crux of the matter Keith Curtis 5/10/11 8:49 PM
On May 10, 6:42 pm, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:

> > Yes, I meant Dell could help someone if Novell disappeared.
>
> Huh?  I have no idea what you are even trying to say.  I suspect you do not,
> either.

My point is that if a support provider disappears (Novell, or one of
Novell's certified providers), others can provide you support. Like
Dell.

-Keith

Re: The crux of the matter DFS 5/10/11 8:49 PM


There you go again: "I meant..."

Re: The bizarro claims of Keith Curtis High Plains Thumper 5/10/11 10:47 PM
Snit wrote:
> KeithCu stated:
>> Hadron wrote:
>>
>>> What lies?

>>>
>>> He has correctly pointed out that you're an arrogant, puffed up moron
>>> who writes total bullshit with zero to back you up.
>>
>> When you write nonsense like that you tell others that you are not
>> worthy of having a discussion.
>
> First: I completely disagree with such name calling.  I will say,
> though, that you have repeatedly made claims you cannot supply good
> arguments to support and you make claims which are not rational, such as
> how wanting people to pay a fair level of taxes is somehow a sign of
> jealousy.  That is just bizarre.

As bizarre as these 151 testimonies on the Snit Circus of Pathological
Lies:

1- Adam Kesher: "Steve, IIRC Sandman's website has a member area and a
login. If you forget your password, you can ask it to e-mail it to you,
and a bot will send an e-mail.  *That* is the e-mail Snit got from
Sandman's website, and yes he's that fucked in the head and starved for
attention that he'd claim it to be an e-mail from Sandman himself. So,
don't get sucked into his little circus.  The e-mail, in this particular
instance, did probably originate from Sandman.net."  27 Feb 2007

http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/dac74355552b4cc7

2- Alan Baker: "People's perceptions of you are *formed* by behaviour and
not withstanding your occasional on topic posts, I wish you'd leave too.
Please note that despite the amazing silliness that is Edwin, I have never
made the same wish of him."  27 Feb 2005

http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/4a7c3ebf3fc10221

3- Andrew J. Brehm: "You are not flamed because you speak the truth, you
are flamed because you are a hideous troll and keep disrupting the
newsgroup."  27 Feb 2005

http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/52eab53a559e00ce

4- AZ Nomad: "The fact that you routinely change your headers to weasel
out of killfiles proves that you're an asshole."   25 Jun 2007

http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/51b43d6c9613c9da

5- Andy/news/nospam: "Why do you keep these things up, Snit? Why not just
let them go away and show how responsible a member of CSMA you are? You
could show your enemies up by being better than them, rise above the low
level you so obviously dislike. Anything, just stop...."  26 Apr 2007

http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/d6ffb6b06aa237e5

6- B.B.: "Does the From: header contain the string "Snit"? If yes, then
troll. Otherwise, maybe. Dunno why I had my KF on you set to expire, but
it's fixed now."  13 Mar 2005

http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/8a98d179b2ff9578

7- BaJoRi: "You know it, and I know it, and everyone else who has read
your idiocy knows it. I took your statement, showed it to be wrong, then
added even more, just to be a dick and REALLY show you to be a fool. You
need to judiciously snip out pertinent points because you are an
intellectually dwarfed turd-burglar."  11 Nov 2008

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.vacation.las-vegas/msg/647944511b74b82f

8- bobinnv: "I learned some time ago how much better this group can be if
you kill file Snit. I have never understood why more people don't do the
same.."  5 Aug 2006

http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/0706dbef8ce1f903

9- Bob B.: "This has always been pretty much a free-for-all group, but
since Snit showed up, its become almost impossible to have a decent
discussion about anything. The solution is to NOT REPLY TO SNIT. But for
some reason, some people just can't stop feeding him."  27 Dec 2004

http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/3d2f1dff196ca190

10- °b° unny: Subject "snit makes me sad", Text "really actually  =:-("
9 Oct 2004

http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/4e31cb49c1e2d432

11- Brian: "LOL, Has anyone ever been more universally hated on the USENET
than Snit? Too bad he craves the hatred and negative attention. We will
read about him in the news some day soon going on a shooting rampage.
Somebody should get the pychopath some help before he VT's a bunch of
people.  29 May 2007

http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/66a89e4f5c89f489

12- buzz off: "Snit is obviously mentally ill, but you and Steve don't
help. You encourage him to post, which he doesn't need to do. We would all
be better off if you just ignore him.  17 Nov 2004

http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/2ed879f256677548

13- Carlo Coggi: "He must believe he is surrounded by 'trolls' ... in the
groups he trolls in, that is.  I wondered if the idiotrollers like snit
would reply to this thread. Of course, I didn't see his posts, only your
reply".  07 Aug 2006 (available only in reply)

http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/5ea48f7a84115fd1

14- C Lund: "Snit is not my responsibility. Maybe it's time for you to
learn how to use your kill-filter. I am assuming, of course, that your
Usenet browser has a kill-filter."  5 Mar 2005

http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/2c390a34b05b24a9

15- cc (COLA): "You are incapable of letting anything go. In fact, I
guarantee you will respond to this post in under 3 hours. Hell, I'd be
surprised if it takes longer than 30 minutes. If I really wanted to, I
could make this little side topic go on forever, because you are a
complete moron who just has to respond to anything written about or to
you, even if it just means repeating yourself."  1 Feb 2010

http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/3712090033411605

16- Chance Furlong: "HPT, Wally, Sandman, C Lund, Steve Carroll and Tim
Adams are not trolls and do not troll. You, on the other hand, are a
troll."  27 Aug 2009

http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/28c267f26965b43f

17- Chris Ahlstrom (COLA): "I try to go more by the contents of the posts.
Although some clowns (e.g. Snit) spew out so much chaff it is not worth
the effort." 14 Feb 2010

http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/8b6a982957c7c9d5

Chris Ahlstrom (COLA): "Actually, many of the advocates are sick to death
of Snit's never-ending puerile blather about trivialities.  The occasional
reasonable conversations are too few and far between."  6 Mar 2011

http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/811326833ba71864

18- Chris Clement: "ugh....geez man.....let it go"  5 Jul 2006

http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/ed093996df6547b2

19- chrisv (cola): "No, she called him 'shit', and rightly so, for they
way he was so ignominiously birthed into a toilet at the bus depot, and
simply refused to die, despite repeated flushes.  It's now far too late to
*flush* him, but we can still *plonk* him..."  12 Sep 2005

http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/18099f8aa067f4a5

20- Code Orange: "Then why post it? What need is there for you to "win" an
argument? They don't like you, you don't like them. Why must you keep this
up? What results are you expecting?"

21- CozmicDebris: "I'm done with your three year old games. The archives
show my answers and your inability to process them. Keep posting your list
and proving that you are an idiot troll. I will not address it any
further- you being too stupid to realize and accept that is not my
problem".  22 Nov 2007

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.cellular.attws/msg/0aa65b7a132dbfe8

22- cshenk: "I happen to believe him over you...  and I doubt I'd be the
only person in this ng to do so. You have given people a lot of 'evidence'
that you are dishonest... as 'evidenced' by the quotes list." .... "Why
stop with Jonas? Why not call the entire list of people on your quotes
list 'liars'? After all, they have all labeled you a liar, troll or
worse."  27 Nov 2010

http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/909a59de04850ef5

23- Dave Fritzinger: "[snip of stuff I really don't care to read]  Snit,
please go away. Get a life, meet a woman, do something, but please,
please, please, GO AWAY!!!!"  2 Jun 2006

http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/57bb2fc42ec0f290

24- Dawg Tail: "PC advocates, Mac advocates, Linux advocates. Almost all
of them are making similar claims about Snit. When you have so many
diverse people who share a common perception where do you think the
problem lies? With Snit? Or almost everyone else? The answer doesn't
require an advanced degree to figure out."  30 Dec 2004

http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/73edac32c3ad530b

25- Donald L McDaniel: "Jesus, snit. You're a teacher. I thought you knew
what a metaphor was, and could recognize one when it was presented to you.
I guess I had too much confidence in you."  30 Nov 2006

http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/3254ec7af27bfb0f

26- ed: "snit, you continually amaze me with how much of a liar and loser
you are. you may notice a semi-regular pattern with me where i stop
responding to your posts for stretches at a time, then start up responding
as if you were a normal person. i suppose it's tough for the magnitude of
your 'loserdom' to stick, so it loses some of it's sharpness when i stop
responding to you. you almost always start responding back in a semi
normal way, but inevitably degenerate. it's once again that time. i can
only ask that you pass my condolences to your wife and unborn child for
having to put up with such a dishonest fool as yourself. (well, if your
wife is a loser as well, just pass those condolences to the rug-rat to be;
if not, double condolences to her). "  30 Apr 2005

http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/71f74dd6d806ce77

27- Edward Stanfield: "Snit thinks the rules that apply to honest and
honorable people apply to him.  That is absurd.  He is the biggest liar in
Usenet history.  Mackay posted the email to prove Snit was using sock
puppets and he still is.  Snit can not give up his socks puppets and
shills.  They are the only ones who ever support him."  28 Jan 2009

http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/5b52494d96d12229

28- Edwin: "You've got to be out of your mind, Snit. You're the worst
troll this group has ever seen. You're a liar and a forger, and you've
almost destroyed this group single-handedly. For you to post a list of out
of context arguments, and lies, and forgeries about your enemies labled as
a "peace effort" has to be one of the craziest stunts you've pulled. It's
all about your sick need for attention, your need to be center stage at
all times. You'd publicly eat dog turd if you thought it would make people
look at you."  18 May 2007

http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/37e4a720619642a0

29- Elijah Baley: "Seriously, Snit, you need psychiatric help. Go see a
doctor."  24 Aug 2006

http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/6f6c88356b54fc15

30- Elizabot v2.0.2: "I see you were unable to respond to the points in my
post and you are back to your repetitious regurgitation mode. How
childishly typical of you, Snit."  16 Nov 2004

http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/55214ccfb7414fe5

31- Fa-groon: "I don't read Snit period. He's been killfiled since the
first day I posted here. [....] I don't want to 'do like Snit'. As far as
I'm concerned, Snit doesn't even exist."  15 Aug 2009

http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/dcfbff305ba8b7f0

32- fibercut: "That is the problem. In the years I have been coming to
CSMA I have seen in the past year a real hatred among people, besides the
typical Mac vs. Windows typical argument. I feel that it is like being in
a room of really young children trying there best to best the other
person. The one common thing among all of this seems to be you. I hate to
be like this, but facts are facts. You seem to be in the middle of a great
percentage of arguments. CSMA has become less about Macs and more about
"look everybody, I think he lied". Is there no end then all this picking
at each other on such a personal level. CSMA has always been al little
adversarial but you have personally crank it up to the point that this
place is no longer fun. Congratulations on stopping CSMA and making this
place your own personal circus."  12 Jan 2006

http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/bbe695bbc3424ab6

33- Geezer:
Snit: "Steve Carroll has no sense of morality"
Geezer: "Whined the guy who cannot directly address those who uncover his
lies and deceit;)"
Snit: "and no clue about the law."
Geezer: 'Said the guy who believes his unsupported opinions are "proof".
LOL! (snip more of Snit's unsupported lies)'  1 Jan 2009

http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/d0517ced5134934d

34- Geoff M. Fitton (COLA): "The Prescott Computer Guy *still* showing how
stupid he is... What a mar00n".  30 Aug 2008

http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/f9401b4b57c59865

35- George Graves: "Jason. You have started an argument with the Snit (AKA
Michael Glasser), this should not be done. He will drive you crazy with
his twisted logic, his deep-rooted need to be ALWAYS right at any cost. He
will move goalposts, set up strawmen, and bore you into submission with
his endless pedanticism. The only way to engage him is to hit and run.
NEVER engage him, it's a futile, empty procedure that will only anger you
and feed him. Take my advice and STAY AWAY!"   27 Oct 2004

http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/3d3af33ce25a11fd

36- gimme_this_gimme_that: "Hitting the vodka tonight Snit?"  4 Mar 2007

http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/b457a7b378264794

37- Glenn Hall (COLA): "That person is like a constantly running toilet
that won't stop. Does he ever stop talking about UI consistency? No matter
what anyone replies, he adds a few more branches to the spider web as it
grows and grows. It's a waste of time."  31 Oct 2010

http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/c8dd8a244fe1eb2c

38- Greycloud: "You really shouldn't lie like that. Everyone else notices
that you are not honest and you have no honor."  21 Jan 2006

http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/3b92f11a1ab00f91

39- H: "Your crappy posts are still showing up in seperate threads, are
you doing this on purpose to piss people off? I dont ever censor people
cause that's just retarded but if you dont fix it I'm gonna have to cause
I dont wanna see your name 40 times in a row. So uh, change your client or
something".  12 Sep 2004

http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/f36ee6b458c86499

40- Hadron (COLA): "Would you please stop the whining. FFS he has you
jumping to his every post. How many more fucking times are you going to
post the same repetitive garbage? Please ..at least change the record
sometimes!!!!!!!"  13 Aug 2010

http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/1e0ecbb776623473

41- Henry Flam: "You on the other hand must be a deeply troubled
individual who has a fragile ego. I needn't agree nor disagree with the
points above. I don't care about them. Your constant complaints, whines,
rages, etc., wars with the regular Mac advocates, whom you mislabel as
trolls, arise from your sense that any conversation or thread must orbit
around you. People have pointed that out to you but you don't accept that.
 Snit I feel sorry for you. Please go and see a doctor about your
solipsism. There must be a cure for you deep psychological travail."  18
Aug 2006

http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/b9bb48e6e6da75c8

42- Heywood Mogroot: "*plonk*"  Aug 19 2004

http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/d8afd909a308b97f

43- -hh: 'Perversion has utterly nothing to do with the definition of
"synonymous".  It is, however, a very clear example of how you attempt to
maliciously debase against anyone who disagrees with you.  As such, I
consider this to be a purposeful attempt by you to try to libel me.  This
is your only warning to consider rescinding your remark, with the reminder
that you, and you alone are responsible for that accusation, both in the
ethical as well as the full legal meaning of the word "responsible".'  25
Feb 2008

http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/5496641a3426293a

44- High Plains Thumper: "Agreed except for Snit and socks (Joe Crump and
ad nauseum). I've got Snit kill binned, because he is the classic ad
hominem troll. At first he seems reasonable, but then it always degrades
into name calling bullying, the responder is a liar, etc. AKA the Snit
Circus of Pathological Lies. Perhaps the times he seems reasonable are
when he is properly controlled by medication."  21 Sep 2010

http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/249a598ec5aafe85

45- Homer (COLA): "I don't mean this as a personal insult, but I'm
perfectly serious when I say 'Snit' (Michael Glasser) is obviously
mentally ill, and needs help.  I was going to suggest that someone alerts
his wife to the problem, but I have to assume she's already aware of his
condition, if she is in fact still living with him. It's possible, I
suppose, that he's already undergoing counselling and/or on medication,
but if he is then it doesn't seem to be helping much. Maybe he just missed
his 'meds' today (again, I mean that sincerely)."  26 Jan 2009

http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/e061874ea94e9ce8

Homer: "Word of advice for anyone concerned: don't be tempted to get drawn
into a Snit circus, it's literally a waste of time. He's just an attention
seeker who'll keep stringing you along, in a never-ending circle of obtuse
questions, for which he has no genuine interest in the answers."  14 Oct
2010

http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/0d06eb2e900e3058

46- hophead: "I have been reading and occasionally posting to CSMA for a
long time now, since 1995 at least. There have always been trolls and
morons, but I've never seen anything quite so disruptive as the Snit
circus. Snit will *never* back down or stop, and neither will most of his
opponents.  A good kill file is your only hope."  20 Aug 2009

http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/3161a78667e299eb

47- Jamie Hart (cola): "It seems that since you are unable to offer
support for your statements, you're reduced to personal attacks on me.
Incidentally, anyone reading this post can see that I have offered no
straw men, and have only asked you to explain how the things you state as
facts can be true. I'm really sorry that you're taking this attitude, the
topic is an interesting one and I thought you might have some insights.
I've snipped the rest, since you dislike long posts and avoid answering
any of the questions I asked by saying everything was just repeated."  6
Dec 2006

http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/8e07cde31f4eecf6

48- Jason McNorton: "You're one of the many, many paranoid people on
usenet that should be confined most likely. You sit there and refresh your
screen endlessly. You post the same nonsense over and over. Either you're
a super troll, or you're a super mess."  1 Nov 2004

http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/7a8e091c0b248eb0

49- JEDIDIAH (cola): "You're simply full of shit."  27 Feb 2006

http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/cdddf5fd04d9afcb

50- Jeff B.: "Yo, Snit. We're not pals. I think you're a git."  23 Dec
2005

http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/0ec649345d433a2d

51- Jeff Hoppe: "This is a Macintosh Advocacy newsgroup. Not a 12-step
recovery plan. Your medical problems or conditions won't help me achieve a
greater understanding of my Mac. In fact, it detracts from it and those
kinds of discussions have no place in a newsgroup such as this."  18 Nov
2004

http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/947a2cc0301a2862

52- Jesus: "Really, Snit. It's annoying. What are you accomplishing
besides being annoying? Is that your goal?"  25 Apr 2007

http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/e3d5029d34cde243

53- Jim Lee Jr.: "Snit, read the thread's title, is Bush mentioned in it?
You (and Carroll) ought to learn to stay on topic and not hijack threads."

54- Jim Polaski: "Why is it that nearly every thread you're involved in
seems like it turns into some tit-for-tat, dozens of responses to OT
things and garbage? Cmon there Snit. Someone has to take the lead and stop
this crap. Try. How about it?"  25 Apr 2006

http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/5b5c22490ab9649b

55- Jim Richardson (cola): "And yet again, Snit runs away, rather than
actually provide evidence for his claims. Par for the course I suppose."

"Evasion noted. Snit runs away again rather than produce evidence for his
claims.  At least come up with some original insults Snit! I mean, you
*are* capable of original thoughts! Right? Snit?"  8 Feb 2008

http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/e33321cc3343fc44

56- Joey Jojo Junior Shabadoo: "and Snithead has even farther to fall - in
a few weeks he'll be out on the street after midnight, yelling at
passersby 'sucky sucky, $2...'"  23 Mar 2005

http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/57cf69f66571a5a7

57- John C. Randolph: "You're nothing but a troll yourself. What are you
bitching about?"  1 Dec 2005

http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/12ba528be5ad2665

58- JohnOfArc (cola): "I'm not sure "troll" does it justice- more like a
black hole! But hey, if we all promise to never again even entertain an
unkind thought re Apple, will you take it back and lock it up? Please??"
11 Mar 2005

http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/e2891b1f3984e121

59- John Q. Public: "I have not been bothered to read Snit's postings
since I figured out who he is. I don't bother to filter his posts, I just
consider the source and skip to the next one when I see his name."  7 Jan
2004

http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/7d34c1bd05c877d2

60- John Slade: "I don't get posts from Snit. I wouldn't be shocked that
he has some kind of disorder. He made up stuff about being a computer
repairman and teacher. He's just plain loony and best ignored. Let him
deal with his disorder by medication. He's here to do one thing, get
attention from people. He says the crazy stuff just to get a reaction. You
say you like to beat him over the head. Well that's what he's counting on,
he says stuff he knows isn't true in hopes to get a rise out of people
like you. Ignore him, you won't regret it."  3 Apr 2007

http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/394a53a65c28d314

John Slade: "Snit, you have a enough problems as it is without adding
drinking booze to the list. How the hell did you manage to get out of my
killfile? Oh well back into the cage you go, PLONK."  13 Oct 2007

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.food.wine/msg/992a796786a541d8

61- Josh McKee: "I have no strawman so therefore it has to be in your
mind. .... What is obnoxious are your posts."  26 Jul 2006

http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/3665b9e002d27c44

62- K E: "I haven't read this board for awhile but I see that even though
the trolls still roam free at least the worst troll of the lot is mostly
being ignored by readers on this bb. If the few stragglers that keep
replying to him would just stop responding to Snit at all this place could
be worth coming back to. There's a good chance he'll pack up and take his
trolling to more fertile ground."  22 Oct 2006

http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/0b9dca7df1f677f4

63- KK: 'Whoa there, ad hominem man.  You started off your sentence with
"Ah" like you'd just realized something profound.'  29 Oct 2008

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.howard-stern/msg/6a89029a5b5be5f8

64- Kelsey Bjarnason (cola): "Funny how you simply don't bother reading
the posts that rip your entire thesis to bleeding gobbets of putrid
excrescence. Maybe some day you'll learn how to support your position,
instead of sticking your fingers in your ears and humming, hoping it'll
all go away."  7 Mar 2006

http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/96d064a7a5c6074a

65- Ku Karlovsky (cola): "You repeatedly chastise others for ad hominem
attacks while in the same sentence make your own ad hominem attacks. You
make silly claims and then avoid the subject of your silliness. You're a
liar and a hypocrite and you always have been."  14 Jul 2005

http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/d1e3f9ac5c72c6ee

66- Lars Trager: "Yes, you are stupid."  7 Jan 2006

http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/a9bedf6689f9a54f

67- Lawrence D'Oliveiro (COLA): "You seem to be full of complaints about
your inability to hold up your end
 of the argument, aren’t you?"  16 Mar 2011

http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/8ca5f48099696228

68- Lefty Bigfoot: "Okay, I tried to put up with it for a long time, but
the few times you post something worth reading just aren't worth it
anymore. *plonk*"  16 Dec 2006

http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/5520adae01120e83

69- Liam Slider (cola): "Maybe he's responding to the fact you've been an
annoying little fuckwit lately. You started out with the pretense of
trying to be fair, but lately all there is from you in COLA is trashtalk
about Linux and you acting every bit the troll."  16 Jul 2005

http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/ad7d6c42c5e4cf2f

70-libcrushersmith: "Snit also thinks Dan Rather still anchors CBS News
and that Gitmo terrorists are innocent!  Any time Snit is cornered, he
changes the subject and will never admit he's wrong."  28 Jan 2009

http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/fbc516717f3b7ccf

71- libsnightmare: "You're a sore loser who has resorted to fifth grade
tactics. How fucking sad - all this clown has left is to edit posts and
post fake bullshit. You can't debate... so you lie. Once again, you have
proved Steve Carroll right about you. Sad..."  4 May 2009

http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/a80c93f80bd6bc3e

72- Linonut (cola): "Snit may be the first retraction of my general
killfile amnesty. The volume of cavilling, whining, foot-stomping,
back-tracking, goal-post shifting, and petulance generated by that effete
candy-ass beggars belief".  30 Aug 2008

http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/cc4827fd7e8ad574

73- Lloyd Parsons: "Well, I don't know if Oxford is the most cretinous, I
would think that would be reserved for Snit! ;-)"  18 Mar 2005

http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/b6cd3ac4bf1e08d6

74- Lewis: "hasn't this fight been going on for like 8 years now? I don't
think anything is ever going to fix snit."  02 Mar 2010

http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/98ef8bca6b3a9b34

75- Lusotec (COLA): "You have started threads on this subject many times,
and many times it has been explained to you how X copy & paste should work
and how bugs in a application are not bugs in the system, but still you
return to this subject and post the same false statements."  09 Mar 2011

http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/37032133fbe9db92

76- Marious Barrier (COLA): "I must recognize that it is the first time I
see that kind of troll, once that start asking moderately serious
questions and since the first answer, gradually starts to degenerate it
by, in many failed attempts of being sarcastic, inserting various indirect
insults and calling all people ignorant and unable to answer what he asks
for."  14 Oct 2010

http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/c6607ea64f436821

77- Mark Kent (cola): "The problem with someone like Mr Glasser is the
same as it is with Mr Wong, even if he were to be honest now, it would be
impossible to determine where the honesty starts and the usual dishonesty
ends. In my primary school, one of the teachers was very keen on proverbs,
and I recall her going over the "cry wolf" story. Mr Glasser could "cry
wolf" over and over now, and I would not come to help him with his sheep,
because I do not know any way of determining if he's ever telling the
truth, or indeed, if he ever has."  2 Dec 2006

http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/3f30aa1b65a972b3

78- Mayor of R'lyeh: "The fact is that he's probably pulling it to this
post since its all about him and he managed to make me think about him
today. A friend of mine has a toddler. I went over to her house and
videotaped her kid doing a bunch of cute toddler stuff then burned a DVD
of it for her. While we were watching the DVD her kid got mad. He got mad
because we quit making him the center of attention and made that kid on
the tv the center of attention. He even ran up to the tv and tried to
block our view of it. That's how Snit lives his whole life."  30 Sep 2006

http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/9935f4154d5a290b

79- McGarnagle: "And you know when Snit is endorsed by two of the biggest
nutjobs in AGA - RichL and El Kabong - you know he's not very bright and a
loon." 31 Oct 2008

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.guitar.amps/msg/e60a33341bff1309

80- Michelle Ronn: "The real topic here is that one someone refutes your
'facts', you run away and ignore them. Refuting your 'facts' is easily
done in this case. I did it, and you ignored it."  9 Feb 2007

http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/c050c82720737b32

81- Mike: "Nonsense. I never see you "advocate" anything. All I see you
doing is engage in endless semantic arguments with everyone. You're the
TholenBot of CSMA. BTW, that's *not* a compliment!"  8 Jul 2006

http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/7c5b72d70b87ffbd

82- Mike Dee: "I will no longer accuse you of lying here. Instead I can
only say that you are a complete and delusional kook that happens to
inhabit CSMA for the time being. That you are unaware of how deranged you
actually behave further reinforces this notion. Please seek professional
help."

"The point that keeps whooshing over your head Snit, is Elizabot made no
threat to you before you went to the police. She made a promise.
Admittedly, to your delusional spaced out paranoiac view point, Elizabot
was suddenly "threatening" to you. In so much as you had to take your
kooky self down to your local police shop and blub on their shoulders
about how much in danger you were in [sob, whine], and they had to waste
valuable policing time consoling you over your stupidity. I bet they have
Kook with a capital "K" written at the top of your profile, Snit."  2 Sep
2005

http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/9cf45bc88a324f40

83- mmoore321: "Snit is a human car-accident and we are all rubbernecking.
We know it is bad form, but yet strangely curious. Treat him the same way,
look but just keep moving on."  18 Aug 2006

http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/f1c3041d89504c07

84- Mojo: "Actually, these facts piss everybody off because they are
off-topic, unnecessarily confrontational, extremely boring and clearly
show that you are crying out for attention."  20 Sep 2006

http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/a38f07b9a4811a80

85- Mr. Blonde: "Lastly, I can't help but comment on the fact that your
obsession with Sandman has actually grown since you claimed to KF him.
Killfilling someone generally implies you're ignoring that person, yet you
piggyback onto virtually every reply to him here and and check his
website's validation status more often than most people check their
e-mail. These are not the actions of a mentally balanced individual."  19
Jan 2007

http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/2b005666ab303e2b

86- MR_ED_of_Course: "Seriously, spend half a day at any pre-school or
kindergarten and see if the kids there can't teach you a thing or two
about social behavior."  16 May 2004

http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/55c03a6a0b7813a4

87- Muahman: "Ahhhh shit, another thread lost to the Snit retard circus!!!
 I actually dread seeing Snit reply to a thread because that automatically
means it's in the toilet."  8 Jul 2009

http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/92e776d521dfa701

88- Mutley (AUK): "For the record ... I'll be done when I decide that
there's more shit on your face than there is on the sole of my shoe."  01
Nov 2009

http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/1802ad3aa000098b

89- Nashton/Nasht0n: "Oh for crying out loud, if I wasn't convinced that
snit is a total loser, and I rarely call people losers, I certainly am
now. Why bother responding to his stupidities anyway?"  29 Nov 2004

http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/be1a326a81441508

90- New Bee: "Honest and honorable? You? You've either got a wry sense of
humor, or you're completely nuts. Either way you're just a waste of time,
and you've done more than anybody to make this group a cesspool. Then you
revel in wallowing in your own filth."  14 May 2007

http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/2856277b085d0274

91- none of your buisiness (COLA): "I am sorry, but I am going to have to
send you to the bin. You're perpetrating the Snit circus by responding to
all of his assinine posts. He is only here for one reason, to disrupt this
group, & you are helping him, as well as flatfish."  04 Jan 2011

http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/a9b40ce46612fdc4

92- Not Important: "I get this mental image of you and a sibling as
children in the back seat of the family car saying: Mom, 'snits' touching
me ... and you responding much as you do now ... I'm not touching you,
you're touching me! The problem is that by now you should've grown out of
that type of poke and complain interaction with others. But, of course,
you've haven't learned how to interact with others in a more
'constructive' and mutually beneficial manner even now."  03 Jul 2007

http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/d16279e9003ca8f4

93- notlisted (COLA): "I actually like Apple.  But I see you as an asshole
who spends an embarassing percentage of your life posting derogatory
comments about a computer operating system you obviously detest, and
insulting those who defend it in a newsgroup dedicated its advocacy.
That's almost the definition of being an asshole, and you have half a
dozen buddies who do the same thing.  You excuse what you do by pretending
that you're merely pointing out problems in the hope that the system will
be improved, but that's an obvious lie whether it's you saying it or one
of your buds.  You do it because you enjoy the feeling it gives you,
whatever that is."  07 Mar 2011

http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/90b57eaa796e8b14

94- OldCSMAer: "What's he been doing? Am I going to be sorry I killfiled
him?"  27 Nov 2006

http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/23b808d9646cd257

95- OldSage: "What drives me nuts is your unrelenting ability and desire
to argue on the head of a pin about the most trivial of things."  2 Oct
2007

http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/88457f8e7c25273e

96- Oxford: "If you are using MT-Newswatcher:  Select offending Author,
example Snit...  Go to the Filters Menu, Choose 'Kill this Author'  Click
'OK'  Then Repeat with each annoying Author of your choice.  Then to see
your work... Choose the Filter Menu again, Then 'Refilter Articles'...
Bam! No more boring, pointless bickering about nothing.  Enjoy!!!!!"  14
Aug 2004

http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/1d7f9181e95ed9ec

97- Owl (COLA): "You have interacted with me often enough to know that I
never initiate personal attacks.  I generally respond in kind.  It is you
who usually fall off the civility wagon first, with your ironically
condescending canned responses that do nothing for your argument and
generally shine a spotlight on the desperation that you are so fearful of
projecting."  5 Mar 2011

http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/8debf93e05da4d26

Owl (COLA): "You are a complete idiot and extremely dishonest.  Consider
yourself permanently plonked."  29 Mar 2011

http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/ba7797c5108b3c10

98- Patrick Nihill: "I mean, honestly, who would you rather discuss
something with; Dan, or someone like Zara? Or, for that matter, Snit, for
whom the work 'troll' seems so painfully inadequate?"  13 Aug 2006

http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/f93db68e683ad769

99- Pawel Wojciak: "Jesus Christ, snit... <plonk> "  27 Jun 2006

http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/93afdfea4d4f491a

100- PC Guy: "Forget it Snit, you're a waste of time. For someone who
talks about everyone else not being "honest and honorable" you appear to
be the least honest and honorable of anyone here."  22 Apr 2007

http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/36bf51df2a2662a4

101- Peter: "I've never felt the need to use the filters in Newswatcher
but I thought Id try the Kill this Author.. option with Snit. Ten seconds
later and he's gone! Amazing."  30 Dec 2004

http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/011eef01d7bcd56c

102- Peter Bjorn Perlso: "Plonked for 60 days. Now stfu and take your
argument with sandman into the private room."  13 Dec 2006

http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/ae4651ec99be3c77

103- Peter Hayes: "True, but that removes Snit completely, and someti...
err..... occasiona.... errrrr..... once in a blue moon he has something
useful to say."  20 Mar 2007

http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/8a31a47e26c5f5b7

104- Peter Jensen (cola): "Where has he ever said that they were not
different windowing environments? Message-ID, please. Experience has told
me not to trust you on anything without backing evidence."  30 Jun 2005

http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/cfd5de2006d42fdc

105- Peter Kohlmann (cola): "Snot Glasser is invading this group with his
inane drivel, so he has to bear what people think about that dishonest
retard. And just for the record: You *are* a Glasser sock"  30 Jan 2010

http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/f3166f6fda92641b

106- PeterBP: "Oh will you stfu".  30 Mar 2008

http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/3e88e9a86cb5483e

107- Phil Earnhardt: "You're only interested in trying to get superficial
snipes and extrapolate inappropriate conclusions."  1 Nov 2004

http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/ad24a97d5dc86277

108- Rapskat (cola): "For instance, your sig you reference a long standing
war you have going with some person from csma. It's like you single out
persons to target your attentions upon and then continuously berate them
with constant barbs and goads to perpetuate their acrimonious responses,
which in turn you respond in kind, etc. ad infinitum. Above all things,
your affinity for Macs and your overbearing pompous nature aside, this is
what convinces me that your primary purpose for frequenting this and other
groups is to troll."  07 Sep 2005

http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/a09c6b8e3e63f42d

109- RichardK: "Just killfile him already."  20 Jun 2006

http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/1c9e7ded2e95a582

110- Rick (cola): "Snit, you are a liar. And an ignorant one. You trash
people that are trying their level best to cope with a horrendous
situation. And you do it without the slightest idea of what is going on."
06 Sep 2005

http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/fcad2955ac5cb03b

111- Rick G.: "Just to be plain here, I have no doubt that he is a troll.
I am tolerant of his natu

Re: The bizarro claims of Keith Curtis High Plains Thumper 5/10/11 10:48 PM
Re: The crux of the matter Snit 5/10/11 11:34 PM
KeithCu stated in post
337aae33-9c01-4ff9-b85b-6f58f7e3553d@22g2000prx.googlegroups.com on 5/10/11
8:49 PM:

Dell does offer support.

--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]


Re: The bizarro claims of Keith Curtis Snit 5/10/11 11:41 PM
High Plains Thumper stated in post iqd7ug$ajf$1...@dont-email.me on 5/10/11
10:48 PM:

> Snit wrote:
>> KeithCu stated:
>>> Hadron wrote:
>>>
>>>> What lies?
>>>>
>>>> He has correctly pointed out that you're an arrogant, puffed up moron
>>>> who writes total bullshit with zero to back you up.
>>>
>>> When you write nonsense like that you tell others that you are not
>>> worthy of having a discussion.
>>
>> First: I completely disagree with such name calling.  I will say,
>> though, that you have repeatedly made claims you cannot supply good
>> arguments to support and you make claims which are not rational, such as
>> how wanting people to pay a fair level of taxes is somehow a sign of
>> jealousy.  That is just bizarre.
>
> As bizarre as these 151 testimonies on the Snit Circus of Pathological
> Lies:

Yet you cannot quote any of my alleged lies.  Why do you think you are so
incompetent?  And why are you so desperate for attention?

--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]


Re: The crux of the matter Hadron 5/11/11 1:27 AM
DFS <nos...@dfs.com> writes:

Is he for real?

"I know I failed my math exams I *meant* to put the right answers ...."

Re: The crux of the matter amicus_curious 5/11/11 5:51 AM

"Hadron" <hadro...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:3mbozajfos.fsf@news.eternal-september.org...

> "amicus_curious" <ac...@sti.net> writes:
>
>> "Hadron" <hadro...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:tnsjsmjk61.fsf@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>> So how is the source code necessary for understanding that?  Isn't it
>>>> self-evident from the computer science itself?  The science comes from
>>>> a
>>>> description of the methods and theories, not from the implementation.
>>>
>>> You're joking right?
>>>
>>> You don't see the value of the source as scientific documentation?
>>
>> Documentation?  What is documented in that way?  Code is simply
>> implementation.
>
> "simply implementation" : almost Keith'esque in its stupidity.
>
>> Commentary in the source is traditionally provided to explain what is
>> being
>> implemented in the code, but the code itself is pretty universally
>> regarded as a
>> poor way to document anything.
>
> What total and utter nonsense. Over documenting code is considered bad
> in most projects : the code can and is good documentation for the
> *competent programmer*.
>
Well, pardon me for chuckling over the notion that someone might complain
about having too many comments in one's source!  LOL!

> It's why you will find only sparse documentation in a quality code base
> like the Linux code base. People capable of maintaining it dont need to
> be told that "we add one to the integer i" which it seems you might
> need. This increment being, of course, one component in a much more
> complex piece of SW which has developed from CS principles and
> implements and improves on many previous algorithms and implementations.
>
I am also amused by your arguing my point for me.  KeithCu's suggestion is
that open source enables follow-on advances in some "science" that allows
one to "stand on the shoulders" of one's predecessors.  After all, what use
then is the source for educating one who is already a "competent programmer"
to begin with?

Certainly one would note at some place in the source code that the section
being commented was implementing some new algorithm and use words that
described the overall function of some code sequence.  I don't know why you
would seize on such a silly example as a comment on "i++;" unless that looms
in your focus as somehow pertinent.  As the bard put it "the lady doth
protest too much!"


>>
>> Do you have a computer science degree yourself?  Do you develop software?
>> You
>> don't seem to understand very much about the process.
>
> A have an EE degree with a large SW component and have been a
> professional programmer at pretty much all levels for more than 20
> years. Its how I know you're talking shit. Again. Not that I need to
> prove anything here : anyone here that is a programmer will see you
> haven't got a clue what you're talking about.

Did you get your degree from some state school or was it from a better
university?  I, too, have an EE degree although my concentration was in
feedback control and signal processing.

You also seem to be dodging the direct question of whether you develop
software commercially.  You say "professional programmer" and "pretty much
all levels" whereas all the developers who I worked with at major software
companies referenced themselves as "software engineer" or "software
developer" or even "software architect".   "Programmer" was a term commonly
applied to non-degreed folk who might simply use some package tool like
Joomla, FrontPage, or Dreamweaver.

Re: The crux of the matter amicus_curious 5/11/11 6:20 AM

"DFS" <nos...@dfs.com> wrote in message
news:iqch7t$d51$1@speranza.aioe.org...

> On 5/10/2011 5:37 PM, amicus_curious wrote:
>
>>>> So what "science" might that be, Hadron? And how, by "standing on its
>>>> shoulders" would you be able to advance it?
>>>
>>> A heap of computer science, of course. Found in any sufficiently
>>> complex OS kernel.
>>>
>> So how is the source code necessary for understanding that?
>
> It's not necessary, but that wasn't your question.
>
Context, please.  The issue is about source being necessary for "standing on
the shoulders" of one's predecessor in order to advance "science".
KeithCu's claim is that open source allows this whereas proprietary
practices do not.  The claim is made that "computer science" is somehow
embedded in the Linux kernel and will advance if the code be free and open.
I say that is nonsense and that there is no cause and effect present.  If
there were, someone should be able to describe the mechanism at work.

I believe that source is useful to illustrate a concept, but is not a major
contributor to any sort of scientific advance.  There is plenty of code
available as samples, from Microsoft MSDN and many other sources, to convey
the state of the art.


>
>
>> Isn't it self-evident from the computer science itself?
>> The science comes from a
>> description of the methods and theories, not from the implementation.
>
> Sure.  But the source code contains and reveals a successful, working
> implementation of the science.
>
Remember the original premise is that open source is critical to advancement
of science.  There is no denial that it may be "useful".  The claim is made
that closed source is doomed to eventual failure.

>
>
>> KeithCu's thesis seems to be that any such software work is an
>> unfinished effort that can be built upon as time marches on and that the
>> best way to effect that change will come from having the source code
>> available to everyone. That is sort of romantic, but I think it is
>> nonsense.
>
> I wouldn't call it nonsense, since open source at least allows people to
> learn.  And most open source products do show improvements over time.
>
> But I agree, open source has not proven to be nearly the successful
> development method various "advocates" claim it is (or will be, in the
> case of KeithCu).
>
>
>
>> From an engineering POV a program is a product that must stand
>> on its own. Whether it can be successfully modified in the future to
>> improve its utility or whether it needs to be re-done from scratch is
>> just a decision trade-off that should be based on which course might
>> have a better return on the effort involved.  In some cases it may very
> > well be the case that no change is even necessary.
>
>
> Not sure what your point is.  You seem to trivialize the availability of
> source code.  MS would suffer disastrously if its source was lost.
>
Which is why they keep a backup copy somewhere, eh?  Probably more than one
copy in more than one location. :-)

> And what program has ever been "redone from scratch"?
>
Windows for a start.  There is a lot of opportunity for splitting hairs
regarding the meaning of "scratch", of course, but the idea that some
program can be drastically re-written is not that remote.  For example,
before I retired I altered a major service element of our flagship product
by re-implementing the service using managed C# code and .NET in lieu of the
C++ and Win32Api design used in the previous releases.  Way back before
that, the service was re-coded in C++ and OOP from its original C language
form in the early 1990s.  Other teams re-implemented the UI elements with
WPF, Silverlight, and XAML replacing the original C++ WinForms and GDI
designs.

>
>
>
>> The point here is that any source code implementation of a product such
>> as Windows or Linux or MS Word or OO or anything else is merely a
>> complete work just as a motion picture or a hit song or a best selling
>> novel. The "science" upon which it is built comes from a statement and
>> proof of the methods and principles involved, not from the work itself.
>
> The product - whether in binary or source form - contains and reveals and
> validates the methods and principles which constitute computer science.
> Your claim that there is "no science in the Linux kernel" is extremely
> bogus.  Ridiculous, really.
>
You play with words.  Certainly you can describe the elements in the Linux
code using computer science terms and illustrate how the principles of CS
are applied in forming a finished product.  But the work is the result of
applying the science, not the essence of the science itself.  To advance the
science, you have to add or modify a principle of that science.  Then you
can apply that advancement and even use some implementation to illustrate
it, but the advance to the science comes before any use.

Re: The crux of the matter amicus_curious 5/11/11 6:31 AM

"KeithCu" <kei...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4bf2f81b-9d1e-4c19-a331-6b976d4d090a@r33g2000prh.googlegroups.com...

> On May 10, 9:40 am, "amicus_curious" <a...@sti.net> wrote:
>>
>> >> If some entity such as Microsoft creates a software program, for
>> >> example
>> >> MS
>> >> Word, and keeps it proprietary, they are not affecting Computer
>> >> Science
>> >> at
>> >> all.
>>
>> > It is an interesting question whether word processing is a science.
>> > But: how much science is in the Linux kernel?
>>
>> None, I would say.  An OS is, at its core, a collection of useful
>> functions
>> along with a task scheduler and state manager.
>
> I am sure Linus would say there is science in the Linux kernel, he
> could point to the RCU as one example. People write papers about it,
> study it like they study every other problem, etc. People write papers
> about many aspects of the kernel: scheduling is very popular as well.
>
People write a lot of papers about things in Windows as well.  You do not
have to see the entirety of the source code for Windows to delve into the
computer science aspect of some innovation.  It is adequately explained by
the paper.

> In fact, every single change involves the scientific act. Changing
> software is a science.
>
Changing software to make it perform more beneficially is innovation.
Describing that innovation to others is needed to advance the science.  Just
leaving it somewhere on the off chance that someone else will discover it is
not an effective way to promote it.  It may be that the innovation has a lot
of intrinsic value and it should be either kept secret or, better yet,
patented to protect the revenue that it should produce.

> So the point is that once you've done science and learned something
> and made something better, if the codebase is useful to others, make
> that change available.
>
You advance the science by disclosing the advance.  If that is your aim,
just do it.  The availability of the source code is a minor issue compared
to the disclosure of the principles and methods used.

Re: The crux of the matter Hadron 5/11/11 8:07 AM
"amicus_curious" <ac...@sti.net> writes:

> "Hadron" <hadro...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:3mbozajfos.fsf@news.eternal-september.org...
>> "amicus_curious" <ac...@sti.net> writes:
>>
>>> "Hadron" <hadro...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:tnsjsmjk61.fsf@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>>> So how is the source code necessary for understanding that?  Isn't it
>>>>> self-evident from the computer science itself?  The science comes from a
>>>>> description of the methods and theories, not from the implementation.
>>>>
>>>> You're joking right?
>>>>
>>>> You don't see the value of the source as scientific documentation?
>>>
>>> Documentation?  What is documented in that way?  Code is simply
>>> implementation.
>>
>> "simply implementation" : almost Keith'esque in its stupidity.
>>
>>> Commentary in the source is traditionally provided to explain what is being
>>> implemented in the code, but the code itself is pretty universally regarded
>>> as a
>>> poor way to document anything.
>>
>> What total and utter nonsense. Over documenting code is considered bad
>> in most projects : the code can and is good documentation for the
>> *competent programmer*.
>>
> Well, pardon me for chuckling over the notion that someone might complain about
> having too many comments in one's source!  LOL!

Amicus, you're clearly not a programmer.

Over commenting by incompetents is a burden for code maintainers.

If you did NOT know that then you're most certainly not in a position to
judge any further.

Good clean code IS like commenting. It is not the competent programmers
job to comment standard language patterns so someone unfamiliar with the
language can read it.

Of *course* good function level headers are a boon.

Since you're clearly in one of your chuckling moods I wont pursue this
thread with you anymore since, like your ridiculous view of market
share, you are obviously too stuck in your own mindset to think out of
the box : you are limited to some old views entrenched for years.

Re: The crux of the matter JEDIDIAH 5/11/11 7:24 AM
On 2011-05-11, amicus_curious <ac...@sti.net> wrote:
>
>
> "KeithCu" <kei...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:4bf2f81b-9d1e-4c19-a331-6b976d4d090a@r33g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
>> On May 10, 9:40 am, "amicus_curious" <a...@sti.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> >> If some entity such as Microsoft creates a software program, for
>>> >> example
>>> >> MS
>>> >> Word, and keeps it proprietary, they are not affecting Computer
>>> >> Science
>>> >> at
>>> >> all.
>>>
>>> > It is an interesting question whether word processing is a science.
>>> > But: how much science is in the Linux kernel?
>>>
>>> None, I would say.  An OS is, at its core, a collection of useful
>>> functions
>>> along with a task scheduler and state manager.
>>
>> I am sure Linus would say there is science in the Linux kernel, he
>> could point to the RCU as one example. People write papers about it,
>> study it like they study every other problem, etc. People write papers
>> about many aspects of the kernel: scheduling is very popular as well.
>>
> People write a lot of papers about things in Windows as well.  You do not
> have to see the entirety of the source code for Windows to delve into the
> computer science aspect of some innovation.  It is adequately explained by
> the paper.

    ...although another problem with anything that Microsoft publishes is
that there is likely a corresponding patent. This effectively stifles the
ability of anyone to build on that work.

    Stupid stuff like FAT ends up being used as a blunt instrument to beat
other companies with.

[deletia]

--
    If some college kid can replicate your "invention" without seeing   |||
any of the details of your patent then you have been granted a patent  / | \
on the "idea" and not the actual implementation.

Re: The crux of the matter JEDIDIAH 5/11/11 7:22 AM
On 2011-05-11, amicus_curious <ac...@sti.net> wrote:
>
>
> "DFS" <nos...@dfs.com> wrote in message
> news:iqch7t$d51$1@speranza.aioe.org...
>> On 5/10/2011 5:37 PM, amicus_curious wrote:
>>
>>>>> So what "science" might that be, Hadron? And how, by "standing on its
>>>>> shoulders" would you be able to advance it?
>>>>
>>>> A heap of computer science, of course. Found in any sufficiently
>>>> complex OS kernel.
>>>>
>>> So how is the source code necessary for understanding that?
>>
>> It's not necessary, but that wasn't your question.
>>
> Context, please.  The issue is about source being necessary for "standing on
> the shoulders" of one's predecessor in order to advance "science".
> KeithCu's claim is that open source allows this whereas proprietary
> practices do not.  The claim is made that "computer science" is somehow
> embedded in the Linux kernel and will advance if the code be free and open.

    Nope. There's always documentation too.

    Academia thrives on published papers. Those require the disclosure of
all methods and procedures that are just as good as source code.

    Proprietary BLOB binaries by definition only benefit the corporation
that made them and really don't improve the state of the art.

[deletia]

    Science thrives on publications.

    The original genesis for the relational database that is in wide use
today was laid out in an article written in the general newsletter published
by the ACM.

--
    If some college kid can replicate your "invention" without seeing   |||
any of the details of your patent then you have been granted a patent  / | \
on the "idea" and not the actual implementation.

Re: The crux of the matter amicus_curious 5/11/11 8:51 AM

"Hadron" <hadro...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:7qhb912s4i.fsf@news.eternal-september.org...

>
> Amicus, you're clearly not a programmer.
>
Nope.  I am a former software engineer.  "Senior Principal Engineer" by
title.  Retired now.

You, though, are quite obviously a "programmer" as you insist, complete with
the sort of vague understanding of science that you exhibit here.

> Over commenting by incompetents is a burden for code maintainers.
>
Are you a code maintainer?  That sounds about right.  I myself was a product
developer and wrote the original versions that you programmers ended up
maintaining.  That's a lot more fun, I feel.

> If you did NOT know that then you're most certainly not in a position to
> judge any further.
>
> Good clean code IS like commenting. It is not the competent programmers
> job to comment standard language patterns so someone unfamiliar with the
> language can read it.
>
> Of *course* good function level headers are a boon.
>
> Since you're clearly in one of your chuckling moods I wont pursue this
> thread with you anymore since, like your ridiculous view of market
> share, you are obviously too stuck in your own mindset to think out of
> the box : you are limited to some old views entrenched for years.

Entrenched for decades, hadron, decades!  LOL!  I can chuckle a lot, secure
in the knowledge that I understand the world.  If you were to chuckle a bit
yourself, you would not appear to be so arrogant and overbearing.  But I am
sure you will ignore my good advice.

Did you know that to us chucklers you are sort of an idiot at the core,
hadron?  Were you always like that or have you been bumming around with snit
for too long?

Presumably the answer to my questions raised in the previous post is "No,
not ever" as your evasion seems to indicate.

Re: The crux of the matter amicus_curious 5/11/11 9:00 AM

"JEDIDIAH" <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote in message
news:slrnisl6so.9nv.jedi@nomad.mishnet...I guess that is my stand as well, Jedidiah.  Given your usual intransigence,
though, it is a bit worrisome that you agree with my thoughts here.

I even agree that successful distributions of binary executables by
proprietary software suppliers by themselves do not improve the "state of
the art" at all.  Although you didn't go any further than saying just that,
I expect that your attitude is that these binaries are therefore useless
overall, to which I say that they are the vehicles for the profits that
sustain the actual efforts that do improve the state of the art regardless
of whether or not these improvements become the property of the inventor or
go into the common weal.
 

Re: The crux of the matter DFS 5/11/11 10:55 AM

heh!

Keith failed his Linux Advocacy exam, too.

Re: The crux of the matter JEDIDIAH 5/12/11 10:23 AM

   I care about data. If I can use data freely, then I get less up tight
about the license of the binary that's manipulating it. If you didn't
notice that, then you were too busy trolling to pay any attention.

   Although those that like to push proprietary binaries also tend to use
data formats as a weapon that prevent end users from freely using whatever
tool suits them.

[deletia]

   Open standards make it a lot easier to leave Microsoft when you find
that your application can't scale sufficiently well with their product
even if their implementation is closed.

--
                                                                      |||
     In a free market, the herd should be irrelevant.                / | \

Re: The crux of the matter Keith Curtis 5/12/11 1:18 PM
On May 11, 5:51 am, "amicus_curious" <a...@sti.net> wrote:
>
> I am also amused by your arguing my point for me.  KeithCu's suggestion is
> that open source enables follow-on advances in some "science" that allows
> one to "stand on the shoulders" of one's predecessors.  After all, what use
> then is the source for educating one who is already a "competent programmer"
> to begin with?
>

You can do science ON Windows, but not IN Windows.

How could you change the thread scheduler without access to the
source? Good luck even trying to build Windows.

Computer science is the process of trying experiments and finding the
best possible code.

The "final" code change is something valuable, a true advancement in
science.

Software is inherently valuable. Each code change has added more and
more value. If you have been adding more and more value to a codebase,
how can you ask what value it is?

-Keith

Re: The crux of the matter amicus_curious 5/12/11 1:20 PM

"JEDIDIAH" <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote in message
news:slrniso5sq.qsm.jedi@nomad.mishnet...When has that ever happened in the history of personal computers, Jedidiah?

 

Re: The crux of the matter JEDIDIAH 5/12/11 2:23 PM

   It happens in server computing all the time.

   For someone that seems to have a hardon for Microsoft research papers,
you should have picked up on the thread I was weaving there.

   The fact that you didn't is not really terribly surprising.

--
                                                                      |||
     In a free market, the herd should be irrelevant.                / | \

Re: The crux of the matter amicus_curious 5/13/11 5:19 AM

"KeithCu" <kei...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:6cfef087-40f3-4b5d-8a42-6fd8b88ea93f@z7g2000prh.googlegroups.com...

> On May 11, 5:51 am, "amicus_curious" <a...@sti.net> wrote:
>>
>> I am also amused by your arguing my point for me.  KeithCu's suggestion
>> is
>> that open source enables follow-on advances in some "science" that allows
>> one to "stand on the shoulders" of one's predecessors.  After all, what
>> use
>> then is the source for educating one who is already a "competent
>> programmer"
>> to begin with?
>>
>
> You can do science ON Windows, but not IN Windows.
>
Faux mysticism at best.  Windows is the result of applying computer science
principles to a problem.  Given the way that most design occurs in places
where I have worked, precious little of that is done either.  Usually it is
just an instinctive process that is documented after the fact.

> How could you change the thread scheduler without access to the
> source? Good luck even trying to build Windows.
>
Why would you want to change it?  What principle is being applied?  If there
were changes to be made, it would simply be some refinement obtained
empirically from using the former version.

> Computer science is the process of trying experiments and finding the
> best possible code.
>
Not at all.  Computer science is the understanding of the principles used
for logic and storage network design.  Code is the result of applying those
principles to a specific problem.

> The "final" code change is something valuable, a true advancement in
> science.
>
No.  The production of a paper that describes the new or improved principle
involved along with distribution to peers is the advancement of science.
Better code is just a product improvement that might convince more people to
buy into it.

> Software is inherently valuable. Each code change has added more and
> more value. If you have been adding more and more value to a codebase,
> how can you ask what value it is?
>
Code has value only to the extent that it can be monetized in commerce.
Open source can perhaps save a lot of users some expense when obtaining it.
Proprietary source enables a commerce in the source itself which may be very
advantageous to the authors.  Microsoft proved that.
 

Re: The crux of the matter amicus_curious 5/13/11 5:23 AM

"JEDIDIAH" <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote in message
news:slrnisoju1.i2m.jedi@nomad.mishnet...You have a total lack of substantiation there, jedidiah.  You mouth some
words, but they only show that you have no examples for your absurd claim.
I'll restate the question:  When would an open standard have been useful to
allow your application to scale in some specific instance where some
Microsoft product could not scale sufficiently?
 

Re: The crux of the matter Keith Curtis 5/14/11 1:46 PM
On May 13, 5:19 am, "amicus_curious" <a...@sti.net> wrote:

>
> > How could you change the thread scheduler without access to the
> > source? Good luck even trying to build Windows.
>
> Why would you want to change it?  What principle is being applied?  If there
> were changes to be made, it would simply be some refinement obtained
> empirically from using the former version.

The why is not important now. You are not designating problems for
other scientists to work on, they are.
And so the point remains people cannot do science in this area without
the existing code.

>
> > The "final" code change is something valuable, a true advancement in
> > science.
>
> No.  The production of a paper that describes the new or improved principle
> involved along with distribution to peers is the advancement of science.
> Better code is just a product improvement that might convince more people to
> buy into it.

It is a lot of work to re-implement a paper to do further science.

>
> > Software is inherently valuable. Each code change has added more and
> > more value. If you have been adding more and more value to a codebase,
> > how can you ask what value it is?
>
> Code has value only to the extent that it can be monetized in commerce.

Code also has value because of all of the combined knowledge it has
gained. And it becomes a baseline for future research, and something
that computers can immediately execute over and over, etc.

-Keith

Re: The crux of the matter Snit 5/14/11 2:00 PM
KeithCu stated in post
d29b4545-5d65-4648-a5ee-e38291cf9cd5@z15g2000prn.googlegroups.com on 5/14/11
1:46 PM:

> On May 13, 5:19 am, "amicus_curious" <a...@sti.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>> How could you change the thread scheduler without access to the
>>> source? Good luck even trying to build Windows.
>>
>> Why would you want to change it?  What principle is being applied?  If there
>> were changes to be made, it would simply be some refinement obtained
>> empirically from using the former version.
>
> The why is not important now. You are not designating problems for
> other scientists to work on, they are.
> And so the point remains people cannot do science in this area without
> the existing code.

I know I have no desire to mess with my OSs thread schedule.  This does not
mean I do not see it as important, nor do I not see it as something that
people should work on.  I do not feel my car company has to give me its
trade secrets about its product, nor my OS developer about the OS.  This
does not mean I do not appreciate OSS and how such things are not held as
secrets, but I do not see anything wrong with people keeping their
secrets... well, secret.

>>> The "final" code change is something valuable, a true advancement in
>>> science.
>>
>> No.  The production of a paper that describes the new or improved principle
>> involved along with distribution to peers is the advancement of science.
>> Better code is just a product improvement that might convince more people to
>> buy into it.
>
> It is a lot of work to re-implement a paper to do further science.

So if something would take a lot of work to do, it should be free?

>>> Software is inherently valuable. Each code change has added more and
>>> more value. If you have been adding more and more value to a codebase,
>>> how can you ask what value it is?
>>
>> Code has value only to the extent that it can be monetized in commerce.
>
> Code also has value because of all of the combined knowledge it has
> gained.

This is true of many, many things.  Does not mean you should take those
things from people and make them communal property.

> And it becomes a baseline for future research, and something
> that computers can immediately execute over and over, etc.
>
> -Keith

--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]


Re: The crux of the matter Keith Curtis 5/14/11 6:23 PM
On May 14, 2:00 pm, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
> >>> The "final" code change is something valuable, a true advancement in
> >>> science.
>
> >> No.  The production of a paper that describes the new or improved principle
> >> involved along with distribution to peers is the advancement of science.
> >> Better code is just a product improvement that might convince more people to
> >> buy into it.
>
> > It is a lot of work to re-implement a paper to do further science.
>
> So if something would take a lot of work to do, it should be free?
>

No, I am having a discussion with Amicus and you have interrupted and
missed the context. We are talking about giving away the paper versus
the source.

-Keith

Re: The crux of the matter amicus_curious 5/15/11 5:18 AM

"KeithCu" <kei...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:d29b4545-5d65-4648-a5ee-e38291cf9cd5@z15g2000prn.googlegroups.com...

> On May 13, 5:19 am, "amicus_curious" <a...@sti.net> wrote:
>
>>
>> > How could you change the thread scheduler without access to the
>> > source? Good luck even trying to build Windows.
>>
>> Why would you want to change it?  What principle is being applied?  If
>> there
>> were changes to be made, it would simply be some refinement obtained
>> empirically from using the former version.
>
> The why is not important now. You are not designating problems for
> other scientists to work on, they are.
> And so the point remains people cannot do science in this area without
> the existing code.
>
That is a long leap to a wrong conclusion.  My original comment was more in
line with reality.  I ask "Why would you want to change it?"  expecting the
answer to be that such a change would be an improvement that could be stated
in terms of user benefits to be received and has nothing to do with an code
that might implement that change or even has already implemented that
change.  The "science" of the change is the statement of the principle(s)
involved.

If you would consider the practicality of the matter you would see that
anyone who is likely to be at all capable to ask and answer such a question
is already a long-term practitioner of the science which would make them
privy to some existing code, proprietary or not.  Some dolt like Snit is not
going to come along, discover a need, and effect a solution from reading the
code used to implement an existing product, open source or not.  The idea
regarding what to do will always precede how to do it.

>>
>> > The "final" code change is something valuable, a true advancement in
>> > science.
>>
>> No.  The production of a paper that describes the new or improved
>> principle
>> involved along with distribution to peers is the advancement of science.
>> Better code is just a product improvement that might convince more people
>> to
>> buy into it.
>
> It is a lot of work to re-implement a paper to do further science.
>
Once the science is revealed as science and the product requirements are
stated, it is just a matter of turning the crank to re-derive the results.
That has been the history of FOSS software since its inception.

I think that very little work has ever been done via open source projects
because of their open source.  I cannot really think of anything that I have
seen that even begins to validate your thesis.  Can you point to anything
that anyone has done with FOSS that could be classed as an advancement of
computer science?  To me it is just a bunch of people using cloned versions
of commercial products to save money.  The developers work on these projects
out of the obsessions that developers have to create, certainly, not out of
anything else, particularly the advance of computer science.

>>
>> > Software is inherently valuable. Each code change has added more and
>> > more value. If you have been adding more and more value to a codebase,
>> > how can you ask what value it is?
>>
>> Code has value only to the extent that it can be monetized in commerce.
>
> Code also has value because of all of the combined knowledge it has
> gained. And it becomes a baseline for future research, and something
> that computers can immediately execute over and over, etc.
>
That only applies to the code base being absolutely necessary for continued
evolution of the specific product that it applies to.  I don't dispute that.
If you want to have a bunch of people contribute their efforts at no charge
to the development of your project, you must give them all the things they
need, including the existing code itself.  But you can evolve a product in a
proprietary way just as effectively as long as it is generating enough
revenue to pay for the services of those who are evolving it.  Certainly
Microsoft continues to make a larger and larger profit each year doing just
that.

Re: The crux of the matter Hadron 5/15/11 6:07 AM
KeithCu <kei...@gmail.com> writes:

> On May 13, 5:19 am, "amicus_curious" <a...@sti.net> wrote:
>
>>
>> > How could you change the thread scheduler without access to the
>> > source? Good luck even trying to build Windows.
>>
>> Why would you want to change it?  What principle is being applied?  If there
>> were changes to be made, it would simply be some refinement obtained
>> empirically from using the former version.
>
> The why is not important now. You are not designating problems for
> other scientists to work on, they are.
> And so the point remains people cannot do science in this area without
> the existing code.


It's baffling. You are able to type yet appear to be incapable of
coherent thought. Never in the field of usenet posting has a single man
been able to post so much bullshit and to make so many grand yet
unsubstantiated and generally plain "WronG"  claims. Only Gordon has
come close. Are you related perchance?

Re: The crux of the matter JEDIDIAH 5/15/11 6:42 AM

...oh look. Another one of those Lemming basement dwellers trying to claim
that my own repeated personal firsthand experience is a "lack of
substantiation". Next I suppose you will try citing some website that contains
claims of people you don't know, have never heard of, and aren't in any
position to explain their claims further.

   Like I said. The particular ACM paper I am alluding to is the perfect
example of where Microsoft products fail to measure up in the enterprise.

--
        Nothing today, likely nothing since we tamed fire,    
        is genuinely new: culture, like science and              |||
        technology grows by accretion, each new creator         / | \
        building on the works of those that came before.

                                 Judge Alex Kozinski
                                 US Court of Appeals
                                 9th Circuit

Re: The crux of the matter amicus_curious 5/15/11 12:18 PM

"JEDIDIAH" <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote in message
news:slrnisvm2d.hu1.jedi@nomad.mishnet...

>
>   Like I said. The particular ACM paper I am alluding to is the perfect
> example of where Microsoft products fail to measure up in the enterprise.
>
A complete lack of any substantiation, Jedidiah.  You fail to identify any
paper and only a very slight reference to anything that in the least bit
supports your nonsensical claim.  Perhaps there is a paper somewhere that
suggests that Microsoft's SQL Server is not efficient for the largest
enterprise applications, but your claim was that Microsoft uses closed data
formats that preclude easy scaling when necessary.  Certainly there are no
such closed formats at work with SQL Server and any need to migrate from the
cost effective SQL Server to Oracle or DB2 would not be thwarted in any way.
T-SQL is as open as anything provided by Oracle or IBM.

In any event you make no case at all.

Re: The crux of the matter Hadron 5/15/11 1:41 PM
"amicus_curious" <ac...@sti.net> writes:

You surely dont think the blustering idiot knows anything at all about
sql server do you? I had my suspicions Keith was really Jed for a
while. Both exhibit new levels of bullshit about subjects they clearly
know nothing about. No wonder MS booted Keith out....

Re: The crux of the matter JEDIDIAH 5/15/11 1:12 PM
On 2011-05-15, amicus_curious <ac...@sti.net> wrote:
>
>
> "JEDIDIAH" <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote in message
> news:slrnisvm2d.hu1.jedi@nomad.mishnet...
>
>>

[deletia]

> enterprise applications, but your claim was that Microsoft uses closed data
> formats that preclude easy scaling when necessary.  Certainly there are no

    I stated nothing of the sort.

    Stop engaging in Hadronisms.

--
    In a "stable" but "inconsistent" system, the end user only        |||
    has to adapt once rather than needing to adapt any time a        / | \
    new version of the relevant shovelware is released.

Re: The crux of the matter Hadron 5/15/11 2:46 PM
JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> writes:

> On 2011-05-15, amicus_curious <ac...@sti.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>> "JEDIDIAH" <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote in message
>> news:slrnisvm2d.hu1.jedi@nomad.mishnet...
>>
>>>
>
> [deletia]
>
>> enterprise applications, but your claim was that Microsoft uses closed data
>> formats that preclude easy scaling when necessary.  Certainly there are no
>
>     I stated nothing of the sort.
>
>     Stop engaging in Hadronisms.

Telling lies when you get caught exaggerating fools no one Jed.

You most certainly DID make claims about MS formats...

Re: The crux of the matter Keith Curtis 5/16/11 8:22 AM
On May 15, 1:41 pm, Hadron<hadronqu...@gmail.com> wrote:

> You surely dont think the blustering idiot knows anything at all about
> sql server do you? I had my suspicions Keith was really Jed for a
> while. Both exhibit new levels of bullshit about subjects they clearly
> know nothing about. No wonder MS booted Keith out....

Hadron, you are a liar.

Re: The crux of the matter Chris Ahlstrom 5/16/11 8:48 AM
KeithCu wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:

He's a liar and a troll; he's been doing that for about 5 years.

DFS?  A similar case.

Precious little good comes from their posts.

--
<Overfiend> we're calling 2.2 _POTATO_??

Re: The crux of the matter Hadron 5/16/11 8:51 AM
KeithCu <kei...@gmail.com> writes:

No. I am not. I was trolling there. You can always tell when you see
"...." on the end.

I doubt you even worked for MS.

You seem to know ZERO about SW development. Or were you a QA monkey?
That would figure.

The nonsense you spout about people working for free seems to be from a
position of ignorance where one day you confused Free for free and
couldn't pull yourself out of the hole you had dug yourself.

Re: The crux of the matter Keith Curtis 5/16/11 9:00 AM
On May 15, 5:18 am, "amicus_curious" <a...@sti.net> wrote:
>
> That is a long leap to a wrong conclusion.  My original comment was more in
> line with reality.  I ask "Why would you want to change it?"  expecting the
> answer to be that such a change would be an improvement that could be stated
> in terms of user benefits to be received and has nothing to do with an code
> that might implement that change or even has already implemented that
> change.  The "science" of the change is the statement of the principle(s)
> involved.

"Why" is irrelevant to whether something is science. It either is or
is not, and answering why doesn't change it.


>
> If you would consider the practicality of the matter you would see that
> anyone who is likely to be at all capable to ask and answer such a question
> is already a long-term practitioner of the science which would make them
> privy to some existing code, proprietary or not.  Some dolt like Snit is not
> going to come along, discover a need, and effect a solution from reading the
> code used to implement an existing product, open source or not.  The idea
> regarding what to do will always precede how to do it.

Here is a paper that needed Linux kernel sources:
http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:6c6AeWJdugUJ:citeseer.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download%3Bjsessionid%3D44ABC0A45E4DD518F5F67E72F2D3737C%3Fdoi%3D10.1.1.118.293%26rep%3Drep1%26type%3Dpdf+linux+kernel+thread+scheduler&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESioHymZs5ybvFzgw5Sxfc3CAYvhNULiUlBHHsGt480bv6dxtgW2viNP5_7YKi4_NoN3LjL4NGtv0eI3J-0gtRcOMespUOLcg1WZHfmcfWNSGOc7t9X9EWIYSwhkZwvT8yw9ZlZ2&sig=AHIEtbT-TSgTWdyNMFCLxZ_7dn-rM8GFog

Re: The crux of the matter Snit 5/16/11 9:06 AM
KeithCu stated in post
df07b503-c39e-4d4d-b5dd-687780018c0f@r33g2000prh.googlegroups.com on 5/16/11
9:00 AM:

> On May 15, 5:18 am, "amicus_curious" <a...@sti.net> wrote:
>>
>> That is a long leap to a wrong conclusion.  My original comment was more in
>> line with reality.  I ask "Why would you want to change it?"  expecting the
>> answer to be that such a change would be an improvement that could be stated
>> in terms of user benefits to be received and has nothing to do with an code
>> that might implement that change or even has already implemented that
>> change.  The "science" of the change is the statement of the principle(s)
>> involved.
>
> "Why" is irrelevant to whether something is science. It either is or
> is not, and answering why doesn't change it.

Why not accept that there are some gray areas?

>> If you would consider the practicality of the matter you would see that
>> anyone who is likely to be at all capable to ask and answer such a question
>> is already a long-term practitioner of the science which would make them
>> privy to some existing code, proprietary or not.  Some dolt like Snit is not
>> going to come along, discover a need, and effect a solution from reading the
>> code used to implement an existing product, open source or not.  The idea
>> regarding what to do will always precede how to do it.
>
> Here is a paper that needed Linux kernel sources:
> http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:6c6AeWJdugUJ:citeseer.ist.psu.edu/vi
> ewdoc/download%3Bjsessionid%3D44ABC0A45E4DD518F5F67E72F2D3737C%3Fdoi
> %3D10.1.1.118.293%26rep%3Drep1%26type%3Dpdf+linux+kernel+thread+scheduler&hl=e
> n&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESioHymZs5ybvFzgw5Sxfc3CAYvhNULiUlBHHsGt480bv6dxtgW2v
> iNP5_7YKi4_NoN3LjL4NGtv0eI3J-0gtRcOMespUOLcg1WZHfmcfWNSGOc7t9X9EWIYSwhkZwvT8yw
> 9ZlZ2&sig=AHIEtbT-TSgTWdyNMFCLxZ_7dn-rM8GFog
>

--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]


Re: The crux of the matter Keith Curtis 5/16/11 9:06 AM
On May 16, 8:51 am, Hadron<hadronqu...@gmail.com> wrote:

> KeithCu <keit...@gmail.com> writes:
> > On May 15, 1:41 pm, Hadron<hadronqu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> You surely dont think the blustering idiot knows anything at all about
> >> sql server do you? I had my suspicions Keith was really Jed for a
> >> while. Both exhibit new levels of bullshit about subjects they clearly
> >> know nothing about. No wonder MS booted Keith out....
>
> > Hadron, you are a liar.
>
> No. I am not. I was trolling there. You can always tell when you see
> "...." on the end.

You were lying.

>
> I doubt you even worked for MS.

You are also terribly foolish.

>
> You seem to know ZERO about SW development. Or were you a QA monkey?
> That would figure.

QA requires more than monkeys, but I didn't do QA. I already answered
this. You are a loser and a fool. Hard to believe you have been a
lying troll for 5 years. Can you find something useful to do with your
time?

>
> The nonsense you spout about people working for free seems to be from a
> position of ignorance where one day you confused Free for free and
> couldn't pull yourself out of the hole you had dug yourself.

Operative word there is "seems".

I've not dug myself any hole. You are the ignorant one.

Re: The crux of the matter amicus_curious 5/16/11 9:32 AM

"KeithCu" <kei...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:df07b503-c39e-4d4d-b5dd-687780018c0f@r33g2000prh.googlegroups.com...

> On May 15, 5:18 am, "amicus_curious" <a...@sti.net> wrote:
>>
>> That is a long leap to a wrong conclusion.  My original comment was more
>> in
>> line with reality.  I ask "Why would you want to change it?"  expecting
>> the
>> answer to be that such a change would be an improvement that could be
>> stated
>> in terms of user benefits to be received and has nothing to do with an
>> code
>> that might implement that change or even has already implemented that
>> change.  The "science" of the change is the statement of the principle(s)
>> involved.
>
> "Why" is irrelevant to whether something is science. It either is or
> is not, and answering why doesn't change it.
>
That is just some two-bit mysticism that is not pertinent to the notion that
one needs source to advance computer science.  In addition, I think that it
is true that some scientific principle must offer some improvement to
previous principles in order to be interesting and worthy of exploration.
Else it is a mere curiosity.

>
>>
>> If you would consider the practicality of the matter you would see that
>> anyone who is likely to be at all capable to ask and answer such a
>> question
>> is already a long-term practitioner of the science which would make them
>> privy to some existing code, proprietary or not.  Some dolt like Snit is
>> not
>> going to come along, discover a need, and effect a solution from reading
>> the
>> code used to implement an existing product, open source or not.  The idea
>> regarding what to do will always precede how to do it.
>
> Here is a paper that needed Linux kernel sources:
> http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:6c6AeWJdugUJ:citeseer.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download%3Bjsessionid%3D44ABC0A45E4DD518F5F67E72F2D3737C%3Fdoi%3D10.1.1.118.293%26rep%3Drep1%26type%3Dpdf+linux+kernel+thread+scheduler&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESioHymZs5ybvFzgw5Sxfc3CAYvhNULiUlBHHsGt480bv6dxtgW2viNP5_7YKi4_NoN3LjL4NGtv0eI3J-0gtRcOMespUOLcg1WZHfmcfWNSGOc7t9X9EWIYSwhkZwvT8yw9ZlZ2&sig=AHIEtbT-TSgTWdyNMFCLxZ_7dn-rM8GFog
>
I think this more proves my point than yours.  The benefit stated was
enhanced performance under some useful circumstances and the proposal was to
more efficiently process the locks using the techniques outlined in the
paper.  The Linux kernel code was modified as a reference implementation to
test the theory and prove its efficacy.  Ignoring the fact that this whole
thing is more of an engineering problem than a scientific problem, there is
no showing that the code is/was the vehicle for presenting this idea to the
rest of the world.  No code was actually shown in the paper and I very much
doubt that anyone who might have missed the paper itself would stumble
across this principle by scanning the kernel code someday, assuming that
these modifications are actually adopted by the kernel controllers.

Re: The crux of the matter Keith Curtis 5/16/11 10:08 AM
On May 16, 9:32 am, "amicus_curious" <a...@sti.net> wrote:
> "KeithCu" <keit...@gmail.com> wrote in message> >http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:6c6AeWJdugUJ:citeseer.ist.p...

>
> I think this more proves my point than yours.  The benefit stated was
> enhanced performance under some useful circumstances and the proposal was to
> more efficiently process the locks using the techniques outlined in the
> paper.  The Linux kernel code was modified as a reference implementation to
> test the theory and prove its efficacy.  Ignoring the fact that this whole
> thing is more of an engineering problem than a scientific problem, there is
> no showing that the code is/was the vehicle for presenting this idea to the
> rest of the world.  No code was actually shown in the paper and I very much
> doubt that anyone who might have missed the paper itself would stumble
> across this principle by scanning the kernel code someday, assuming that
> these modifications are actually adopted by the kernel controllers.

The point is that it would have been impossible to do this research
without source code. Software creates a baseline for further science.

-Keith

Re: The crux of the matter Snit 5/16/11 10:32 AM
KeithCu stated in post
fa2d31ca-92c5-46c8-967d-b14f5c5a7efe@s41g2000prb.googlegroups.com on 5/16/11
10:08 AM:

>> I think this more proves my point than yours.  The benefit stated was
>> enhanced performance under some useful circumstances and the proposal was to
>> more efficiently process the locks using the techniques outlined in the
>> paper.  The Linux kernel code was modified as a reference implementation to
>> test the theory and prove its efficacy.  Ignoring the fact that this whole
>> thing is more of an engineering problem than a scientific problem, there is
>> no showing that the code is/was the vehicle for presenting this idea to the
>> rest of the world.  No code was actually shown in the paper and I very much
>> doubt that anyone who might have missed the paper itself would stumble
>> across this principle by scanning the kernel code someday, assuming that
>> these modifications are actually adopted by the kernel controllers.
>
> The point is that it would have been impossible to do this research
> without source code. Software creates a baseline for further science.
>
> -Keith

Great.  And, if I am correct, this is your excuse for forcing private
property to be communal, right?  Do you hold this to be true for all
resources - if you have a resource and the government deems it would be
better used if owned communally, then they should be able to make it
communal property, right?

Hey, if cars were like this we would need fewer cars.  Are you for taking
away private ownership of cars?  How about unused computer cycles - should
the government be able to insist you run programs for them when they are not
being used?

Where does this end?


--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]


Re: The crux of the matter Keith Curtis 5/16/11 10:42 AM
On May 16, 10:32 am, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:

>
> Hey, if cars were like this we would need fewer cars.  Are you for taking
> away private ownership of cars?  How about unused computer cycles - should
> the government be able to insist you run programs for them when they are not
> being used?
>
> Where does this end?

Good question. I only focus on software. I am part of the free
software movement, not free everything movement. Anyway, free software
is more valuable and free extra computer cycles and free cars.

-Keith

Re: The crux of the matter Keith Curtis 5/16/11 10:43 AM
> is more valuable than free extra computer cycles and free cars.
>
> -Keith

Fixed a typo.

Re: The crux of the matter Snit 5/16/11 10:55 AM
KeithCu stated in post
a131be4f-5a95-4602-a26a-d4e234da015f@q14g2000prh.googlegroups.com on 5/16/11
10:42 AM:

Encouraging people to give their stuff away is fine.  Claiming it is immoral
for them not to is rather silly.  And given your above admission of a lack
of overall guiding principles that weakens your argument even more.


--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]


Re: The crux of the matter amicus_curious 5/16/11 11:58 AM

"KeithCu" <kei...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:fa2d31ca-92c5-46c8-967d-b14f5c5a7efe@s41g2000prb.googlegroups.com...

>
> The point is that it would have been impossible to do this research
> without source code. Software creates a baseline for further science.
>
There is nothing here that argues that the source has to be open to all,
though, only open to the people doing the research.  There are lots of
operating systems in use in the world and if some sort of improvement would
make any one of them more valuable, it is likely that those who have control
of the source would gladly provide access to that source.

Re: The crux of the matter Keith Curtis 5/16/11 12:45 PM
On May 16, 11:58 am, "amicus_curious" <a...@sti.net> wrote:
>
> > The point is that it would have been impossible to do this research
> > without source code. Software creates a baseline for further science.
>
> There is nothing here that argues that the source has to be open to all,
> though, only open to the people doing the research.

We are discussing whether a software baseline is useful / necessary to
do scientific research.

>  There are lots of
> operating systems in use in the world and if some sort of improvement would
> make any one of them more valuable, it is likely that those who have control
> of the source would gladly provide access to that source.

Suppose I don't have a proven improvement, just a theory of one? How
do I test it out and refine it?

You make it sound easy to get the source code to proprietary software.
That is a theory you could test scientifically. And I think you'd find
the "gladly" qualification to be false.

-Keith

Re: The crux of the matter Hadron 5/16/11 12:52 PM
"amicus_curious" <ac...@sti.net> writes:

Incredible.

Re: The crux of the matter Snit 5/16/11 12:53 PM
KeithCu stated in post
e75404fc-ea92-4fdc-b17c-de85234b48b0@d19g2000prh.googlegroups.com on 5/16/11
12:45 PM:

> On May 16, 11:58 am, "amicus_curious" <a...@sti.net> wrote:
>>
>>> The point is that it would have been impossible to do this research
>>> without source code. Software creates a baseline for further science.
>>
>> There is nothing here that argues that the source has to be open to all,
>> though, only open to the people doing the research.
>
> We are discussing whether a software baseline is useful / necessary to
> do scientific research.

My property being taken from me and placed into communal hands is not needed
for science to advance.

>>  There are lots of
>> operating systems in use in the world and if some sort of improvement would
>> make any one of them more valuable, it is likely that those who have control
>> of the source would gladly provide access to that source.
>
> Suppose I don't have a proven improvement, just a theory of one? How
> do I test it out and refine it?
>
> You make it sound easy to get the source code to proprietary software.
> That is a theory you could test scientifically. And I think you'd find
> the "gladly" qualification to be false.
>
> -Keith

--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]


Re: The crux of the matter Keith Curtis 5/16/11 1:04 PM
On May 16, 12:53 pm, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> My property being taken from me and placed into communal hands is not needed
> for science to advance.

What is necessary is to have SOME software in communal hands for
science to advance.

And downloading a copy of kernel.org doesn't take Linus's property
from him. He's still got his own copy.

Re: The crux of the matter Snit 5/16/11 1:12 PM
KeithCu stated in post
fedf5267-0b41-44e7-bce7-64f9003ef64c@18g2000prd.googlegroups.com on 5/16/11
1:04 PM:

> On May 16, 12:53 pm, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>> My property being taken from me and placed into communal hands is not needed
>> for science to advance.
>
> What is necessary is to have SOME software in communal hands for
> science to advance.

Which is not an excuse to take *my* software and put it into communal hands.
OK.

> And downloading a copy of kernel.org doesn't take Linus's property
> from him. He's still got his own copy.

Sure, and he has decided to let his code be used that way.  I have no
problem with that.

I just do not want you or anyone else trying to take things from people, nor
even saying it is immoral for people to opt to keep their own property to
themselves and *not* make it communal.

--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]


Re: The crux of the matter Keith Curtis 5/16/11 1:16 PM
On May 16, 1:12 pm, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:

>
> I just do not want you or anyone else trying to take things from people, nor
> even saying it is immoral for people to opt to keep their own property to
> themselves and *not* make it communal.

No one is taking from anyone else. This is free software, not pirated
software.

There is a tradition that science be communal.

Re: The crux of the matter Snit 5/16/11 1:18 PM
KeithCu stated in post
82786c91-c088-4605-b17a-021ba2a51b1b@y27g2000prb.googlegroups.com on 5/16/11
1:16 PM:

Not all science is communal.  And not all software is really science, any
more than all architecture is.


--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]


Re: The crux of the matter Keith Curtis 5/16/11 5:40 PM
On May 16, 1:18 pm, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:

> Not all science is communal.  And not all software is really science, any
> more than all architecture is.

Note that science is a process, and software is a result of computer
science. Now we can argue how much software is scientific, but in a
sense every change to software requires science. You reason, create a
hypothesis in the form of source code, and test that hypothesis on the
computer.

-Keith

Re: The crux of the matter Snit 5/16/11 5:48 PM
KeithCu stated in post
3f7f2cd0-e789-440f-82d8-3c60e0ac3296@e17g2000prj.googlegroups.com on 5/16/11
5:40 PM:

> On May 16, 1:18 pm, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
>> Not all science is communal.  And not all software is really science, any
>> more than all architecture is.
>
> Note that science is a process, and software is a result of computer
> science.

Just as building are a result of material science, etc.  Sure.

> Now we can argue how much software is scientific, but in a sense every change
> to software requires science.

Well, much as every change to a blueprint does... sorta stretching
definitions here, but I am fine with that.

> You reason, create a hypothesis in the form of source code, and test that
> hypothesis on the computer.

Fine.  But that is not a reason to think it is immoral for me to not make my
code communal.  

--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]


Re: The crux of the matter Keith Curtis 5/16/11 5:59 PM
On May 16, 5:48 pm, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:

> Fine.  But that is not a reason to think it is immoral for me to not make my
> code communal.  

It depends on what your code does. A lot of software is foundational.
Consider a text editor. Isn't that something that should be free? If
not, then someone cannot write a document without paying first.

Furthermore, we only need one person to write a free text engine, just
like we need one Linus Torvalds creating a Linux kernel. So if someone
creates a free version of what you are working on, and a community
develops around it, what happens to your product then?

If you want to create your own proprietary kernel, you may, but you
will probably end up re-implementing a bunch of code that the Linux
kernel already has. The Linux kernel has many features that Windows
and other proprietary kernels don't have. The idea that free software
is behind proprietary software is wrong. It is missing some features,
but it has many that proprietary software doesn't have.

Re: The crux of the matter Snit 5/16/11 6:25 PM
KeithCu stated in post
1bb7b491-5c05-4dd3-9bfb-8c4e6865a2cd@r33g2000prh.googlegroups.com on 5/16/11
5:59 PM:

> On May 16, 5:48 pm, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
>> Fine.  But that is not a reason to think it is immoral for me to not make my
>> code communal.  
>
> It depends on what your code does.

So if my code does something really cool, then it is immoral for me to not
give it away?  

> A lot of software is foundational. Consider a text editor. Isn't that
> something that should be free?

Why?  If I write a text editor, what is making me morally bound to giving it
away?

> If not, then someone cannot write a document without paying first.

There are other options than my text editor!

> Furthermore, we only need one person to write a free text engine, just
> like we need one Linus Torvalds creating a Linux kernel. So if someone
> creates a free version of what you are working on, and a community
> develops around it, what happens to your product then?

Well, if mine is better then people will hopefully pay for it.  That is what
Apple does - they make products which, many feel, are better and then people
pay for it.  They have no obligation to give their products away!

> If you want to create your own proprietary kernel, you may, but you
> will probably end up re-implementing a bunch of code that the Linux
> kernel already has. The Linux kernel has many features that Windows
> and other proprietary kernels don't have.

How do you know what capabilities the proprietary kernels have?  Ok, you can
make a pretty good guess.  :)  What are you thinking of though?

> The idea that free software is behind proprietary software is wrong.

Well, in some areas it is... in others it is not.

> It is missing some features, but it has many that proprietary software doesn't
> have.

Overall, though, people clearly do not value it as much... at least on the
desktop.  In other areas they do.  By the way, read my recent response to cc
about some of the things which are important to me - most of which OSS is
far behind on.

--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]


Re: The crux of the matter DFS 5/16/11 6:58 PM
On 5/16/2011 8:59 PM, KeithCu wrote:

> The Linux kernel has many features that Windows
> and other proprietary kernels don't have.

For evidence:

http://widefox.pbworks.com/w/page/8042308/Kernel-Comparison-Linux-vs-Windows

But the author says "This comparison is ultimately my point of view."

> The idea that free software
> is behind proprietary software is wrong.
 > It is missing some features, but it has many
 > that proprietary software doesn't have.


"Free software" apps greatly lag proprietary apps.
"Free software" games greatly lag proprietary games.
"Free software" rdbms greatly lag proprietary rdbms.
"Free software" office software greatly lag proprietary office software.

etc.

I'd even bet that "Free software" text editors lag proprietary text editors.


Here's one list of categories of apps:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_software_categories

[−] Application software
[+] Free application software
[+] Free software by domain
[+] Business software
[+] Software for children
[+] Communication software
[+] Computer-aided design software
[×] Computer-aided manufacturing software
[+] Desktop publishing software
[+] Desktop widgets
[+] Digital typography
[+] Editing software
[+] Educational software
[×] Electrical device control software
[+] Entertainment software
[+] Genealogy software
[×] Government software
[+] Graphics software
[+] Knowledge representation software
[+] Language software
[×] Legal software
[+] Library and information science software
[+] Multimedia software
[+] Music software
[+] Personal information managers
[+] Computer programming tools
[+] Religion software
[+] Science software
[+] Simulation software
[+] Application software suites
[+] Transport software
[+] Video games


[edit] System software
[−] System software
[+] Free system software
[+] Access control software
[×] Application launchers
[+] Personal computer automation software
[+] Compatibility layers
[+] Computer printing
[+] Computer security software
[+] Data compression software
[+] Device drivers
[+] File comparison tools
[+] File managers
[+] Firmware
[+] Graphical user interfaces
[×] Identity management systems
[+] Installation software
[×] Job scheduling
[×] Keyboard layout software
[×] Keyboard-sharing software
[+] Computer libraries
[+] Malware
[+] Middleware
[+] Network-related software
[+] Operating systems
[+] Revision control systems
[×] Screenshot software
[+] Search engine software
[+] Servers
[×] Spam filtering
[+] Storage software
[+] System administration
[×] Terminal multiplexers
[×] Transaction processing
[+] Utility software
[+] Virtualization software
[+] Windowing systems


[edit] Computer programming tools
[−] Computer programming tools
[+] Bug and issue tracking software
[+] Build automation
[+] Code navigation tools
[×] Code search engines
[+] Compilers
[+] Computer-aided software engineering tools
[×] Data modeling tools
[+] Debuggers
[×] Desktop database application development tools
[×] Disassemblers
[+] Discontinued development tools
[+] Documentation generators
[+] Text editors
[×] EXE packers
[+] Formal methods tools
[+] Free computer programming tools
[+] Integrated development environments
[×] Java development tools
[×] Software-localization tools
[+] Microsoft development tools
[×] Profilers
[+] Programming language implementation
[+] Revision control systems
[+] Software testing tools
[×] Static program analysis tools
[+] UML tools
[+] Unix programming tools
[×] User interface builders
[+] Web development software
[+] Computer programming tool stubs


Pick some categories and show me where "Free software" is leading.

<or make up a KeithCu excuse>

Re: The crux of the matter Keith Curtis 5/16/11 8:03 PM
On May 16, 6:58 pm, DFS <nos...@dfs.com> wrote:
> On 5/16/2011 8:59 PM, KeithCu wrote:
>
> > The Linux kernel has many features that Windows
> > and other proprietary kernels don't have.
>

My book has pages of discussion on features the Linux kernel has that
Windows does not. It starts on page 24 and goes to page 41.

>
> > The idea that free software
> > is behind proprietary software is wrong.
>
>  > It is missing some features, but it has many
>  > that proprietary software doesn't have.
>
> "Free software" apps greatly lag proprietary apps.
> "Free software" games greatly lag proprietary games.
> "Free software" rdbms greatly lag proprietary rdbms.
> "Free software" office software greatly lag proprietary office software.

That is totally wrong. It is missing some features, but has enough
features to bet a business on (many do) and has definitely features
the others don't have. Consider the greater portability of free
software. What hardware and OSes does MySQL run that SQL Server and
Oracle do not?

-Keith

Re: The crux of the matter Keith Curtis 5/16/11 8:37 PM
On May 16, 6:25 pm, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:

>
> How do you know what capabilities the proprietary kernels have?  Ok, you can
> make a pretty good guess.  :)  What are you thinking of though?

My book discusses them starting on page 24.

>
> > The idea that free software is behind proprietary software is wrong.
>
> Well, in some areas it is... in others it is not.
>
> > It is missing some features, but it has many that proprietary software doesn't
> > have.
>
> Overall, though, people clearly do not value it as much... at least on the
> desktop.  In other areas they do.  By the way, read my recent response to cc
> about some of the things which are important to me - most of which OSS is
> far behind on.

People don't consider the software valuable, but it is. Debian is
worth $10s of billions of dollars.

I couldn't find the text. Could you copy it here?

Re: The crux of the matter DFS 5/16/11 8:48 PM
On 5/16/2011 11:37 PM, KeithCu wrote:


> People don't consider the software valuable, but it is. Debian is
> worth $10s of billions of dollars.


It's worth very little - effectively $0 - because the source was
released.  I have copies of some source, and I can compile them and give
the source and binaries away to everyone in the world, for no charge.

The trademarks of some distros might be worth a little, but the open
sourced programs are essentially worthless.

You can make money supporting the crapware, but overall the GPL and open
source is anti-success and pro-failure.  It's just ridiculous, really.

Note: the cost to redevelop the Linux kernel and GNU utilities and
various OSS apps is very high, but that's a different issue.

Re: The crux of the matter Keith Curtis 5/16/11 8:57 PM
On May 16, 8:48 pm, DFS <nos...@dfs.com> wrote:
> On 5/16/2011 11:37 PM, KeithCu wrote:
>
> > People don't consider the software valuable, but it is. Debian is
> > worth $10s of billions of dollars.
>
> It's worth very little - effectively $0 - because the source was
> released.  I have copies of some source, and I can compile them and give
> the source and binaries away to everyone in the world, for no charge.

It is sad that you have been hanging out in COLA for so long and you
get these basic facts wrong. It is like saying if I decide to give a
Ferrari away for free it means the Ferrari is worth nothing.

>
> The trademarks of some distros might be worth a little, but the open
> sourced programs are essentially worthless.
>
> You can make money supporting the crapware, but overall the GPL and open
> source is anti-success and pro-failure.  It's just ridiculous, really.
>
> Note: the cost to redevelop the Linux kernel and GNU utilities and
> various OSS apps is very high, but that's a different issue.

That is what we are discussing.

-Keith

Re: The crux of the matter Snit 5/16/11 8:56 PM
KeithCu stated in post
db84dfc2-70d1-4fb4-803c-85521bf9cad2@k3g2000prl.googlegroups.com on 5/16/11
8:37 PM:

> On May 16, 6:25 pm, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> How do you know what capabilities the proprietary kernels have?  Ok, you can
>> make a pretty good guess.  :)  What are you thinking of though?
>
> My book discusses them starting on page 24.

So?  I am asking *you*.  If you answered this in your book then quote it.
It gets old having you point elsewhere.  Learn to answer questions.

At the very least, give a brief answer and then point to another resource
where you give more details.

>>> The idea that free software is behind proprietary software is wrong.
>>
>> Well, in some areas it is... in others it is not.
>>
>>> It is missing some features, but it has many that proprietary software
>>> doesn't
>>> have.
>>
>> Overall, though, people clearly do not value it as much... at least on the
>> desktop.  In other areas they do.  By the way, read my recent response to cc
>> about some of the things which are important to me - most of which OSS is
>> far behind on.
>
> People don't consider the software valuable, but it is. Debian is
> worth $10s of billions of dollars.

This "value" is irrelevant to users.

> I couldn't find the text. Could you copy it here?

Sure.  He asked how OS X served my needs better than the alternatives.  I
responded with:

    -----
    Wow: that would take a long, long time.  But here are *some*
    of the items and the rationale - but be aware this is brief
    and incomplete.  Also, of course, if there is another way of
    doing something that is as good, that is fine - for example,
    when I mention PNG images, I am just noting what I use - not
    what I have to use.  In other words, if you are planning on
    offering a rebuttal about how another OS would serve me as
    well, I am open to doing things in different ways, as long as
    the "other ways" are as good.

    1) Screencasting: I do a lot of this.  I need to be able to
    record the screen and edit it, including changing the cursor
    in post processing (mentioned because this is fairly rare in
    such software), adding arrows and shapes of my own making
    (PNG images with support for transparency), being able to
    speed up and slow down clips and do trimming and the like.
    Multiple tracks are also needed as well as transitions, etc.
    The software I now use is ScreenFlow on OS X:
    <http://www.telestream.net/screen-flow/overview.htm>.
    Camtasia is a fairly distant second... I know of nothing on
    Linux that comes close.

    2) Presentations / presentation-style videos: sorta
    "PowerPoint" style, but better: more professional
    transitions, easier to control movement, etc.  I use Keynote
    on OS X - nothing I know of on Windows or Linux comes close.
    No: OpenOffice and MS Office will not do here (they would be
    distant seconds, at best).

    3) Web development: Any OS can offer a decent text editor, so
    that is not really that "special" with OS X (I use
    TextWrangler).  But I also use Dreamweaver - and this is the
    most advanced WYSIWYG-ish web development tool you can get.
    Not only does it serve me well, but given that I teach
    students to use it, I need it for that as well.

    4) Running Windows in a VM: with the ability to set "screen"
    size for recording.  This includes having mouse drivers that
    allow for the post-processing change with screencasting - not
    sure if all options have that.  Also need decent video
    drivers and the like, but I do not need to be able to play
    high end games and the like in the VM.

    5) Reading text on screen: there is nothing like Tofu on any
    OS other than OS X... not that I know of anyway.
    <http://amarsagoo.info/tofu/>

    6) Image editing.  I use Photoshop and, frankly, GIMP will
    not do.  No smart objects is just a starter as to why.  I
    have gone into more detail elsewhere.

    7) Integrated color selector: so I can have swatches that I
    can share between programs as well as having multiple color
    selection techniques... and add my own if needed / desired (I
    have).

    8) "Advanced" window controls: ability to get a path from
    almost any file (makes it easier to find... and move up the
    path on websites), proxy icons with their ability to move
    files as well as attach them to emails, etc.)

    9) Better email program: including ability to quickly view
    attachments without saving and opening them, even having a
    slideshow of images if you want.

    10) Relatively consistent hot keys and menu items (for common
    items!).  For example, I can quickly get to the prefs of any
    app from the same place.  Even a new app I have never seen
    before.

    11) System services: ability to do ROT13 or all-cap and a lot
    more from almost any program.

    12) PDF Services: I can easily "print" a PDF to a receipts
    folder or a recipe folder or my desktop or whatever without
    having to even dig through files... just set up my common
    areas.  Can also "print" like this to other programs or even
    over a network.

    13) A relative lack of concern for malware.

    14) Easier troubleshooting: pref files in a easy to find
    place with a common file format, can be tossed and recreated
    without hurting the program.  Simple program like YASU to
    handle almost all maintenance tasks.

    15) iWeb - for super-simple and quick sites.

    16) Screen with a glass covering.  Big advantage.  Huge.

    17) Integrated wireless networking without having a "dongle"
    sticking out that is too easy to break.

    I am sure there is a *lot* more... and keep in mind that
    these work together: the color selector, for example,
    benefits Dreamweaver and Photoshop - so these programs do not
    serve me as well on Windows as they do OS X.

    Those are just off the top of my head... it really makes a
    big difference.
    -----


--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]


Re: The crux of the matter Keith Curtis 5/16/11 9:04 PM
On May 16, 8:56 pm, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> KeithCu stated in post
> db84dfc2-70d1-4fb4-803c-85521bf9c...@k3g2000prl.googlegroups.com on 5/16/11

> 8:37 PM:
>
> > On May 16, 6:25 pm, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
> >> How do you know what capabilities the proprietary kernels have? Ok, you can
> >> make a pretty good guess. :) What are you thinking of though?
>
> > My book discusses them starting on page 24.
>
> So?  I am asking *you*.  If you answered this in your book then quote it.
> It gets old having you point elsewhere.  Learn to answer questions.

I have answered it for you. I don't put it here because the pictures
and formatting are lost.

Here is a URL:
http://books.google.com/books?id=J7sB9-oQjvwC&lpg=PP1&dq=after%20the%20software%20wars&pg=PA24#v=onepage&q&f=false

Your list is good. I will look at whether I should talk about them in
the book. I have a chapter on challenges.

Re: The crux of the matter Snit 5/16/11 9:03 PM
KeithCu stated in post
de43f89e-ea2a-4061-9880-69ee4269cca8@k15g2000pri.googlegroups.com on 5/16/11
8:57 PM:

> On May 16, 8:48 pm, DFS <nos...@dfs.com> wrote:
>> On 5/16/2011 11:37 PM, KeithCu wrote:
>>
>>> People don't consider the software valuable, but it is. Debian is
>>> worth $10s of billions of dollars.
>>
>> It's worth very little - effectively $0 - because the source was
>> released.  I have copies of some source, and I can compile them and give
>> the source and binaries away to everyone in the world, for no charge.
>
> It is sad that you have been hanging out in COLA for so long and you
> get these basic facts wrong. It is like saying if I decide to give a
> Ferrari away for free it means the Ferrari is worth nothing.

How are you determining value?  To find the value of a house, you sell the
house and see what someone will pay.  You can get approximations based on
how similar houses sell, etc.  With Debian, people would not pay for it -
given that they can get it for free.  From that perspective, it is worth
*nothing*... it is free.

Or, you can look to similar OSs and see what people pay and play a
make-believe game of if Debian was not free what would it be worth.  Then
you can look at this from the consumer level and say a license is worth, for
desktop users at least, far less than the alternatives (even at free most
people do not want it).  That makes the value very small when seen this way.

Another way to look at is if the license could be rescinded and some company
could buy it, what would they pay for it.  The idea that they would pay tens
of billions of dollars seems rather absurd, but I have no figure here to
offer.  Tens of millions seems more appropriate though.

So the tens of billions... no.  That is a silly figure.  What the heck could
you be basing that on?  Maybe the number of hours people have put into it,
as though effort alone creates value?  Really, where do you get this tens of
billions idea?

>> The trademarks of some distros might be worth a little, but the open
>> sourced programs are essentially worthless.
>>
>> You can make money supporting the crapware, but overall the GPL and open
>> source is anti-success and pro-failure.  It's just ridiculous, really.
>>
>> Note: the cost to redevelop the Linux kernel and GNU utilities and
>> various OSS apps is very high, but that's a different issue.
>
> That is what we are discussing.

Wait: you are looking at what it would cost to redevelop it from scratch?
Who knows.  But by looking at it that way you are pretty much assuming an
alternate universe... so in an *alternate universe* the value of Debian
might be that.  Not sure that is really very impressive.


--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]


Re: The crux of the matter Snit 5/16/11 9:09 PM
KeithCu stated in post
0941dde4-64a9-4d96-b050-944d62e54730@l14g2000pro.googlegroups.com on 5/16/11
9:04 PM:

> On May 16, 8:56 pm, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>> KeithCu stated in post
>> db84dfc2-70d1-4fb4-803c-85521bf9c...@k3g2000prl.googlegroups.com on 5/16/11
>> 8:37 PM:
>>
>>> On May 16, 6:25 pm, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> How do you know what capabilities the proprietary kernels have? Ok, you can
>>>> make a pretty good guess. :) What are you thinking of though?
>>
>>> My book discusses them starting on page 24.
>>
>> So?  I am asking *you*.  If you answered this in your book then quote it.
>> It gets old having you point elsewhere.  Learn to answer questions.
>
> I have answered it for you. I don't put it here because the pictures
> and formatting are lost.
>
> Here is a URL:
> http://books.google.com/books?id=J7sB9-oQjvwC&lpg=PP1&dq=after%20the%20softwar
> e%20wars&pg=PA24#v=onepage&q&f=false

Starting with an image that looks like it came from a messy Spirograph.
Lovely.  The idea of simpler calls for web servers and the like is a
reasoned point, though I do not have the background to know the accuracy of
the claim.

> Your list is good. I will look at whether I should talk about them in
> the book. I have a chapter on challenges.

Would love to hear your thoughts on the list.

--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]


Re: The crux of the matter Keith Curtis 5/16/11 9:13 PM
On May 16, 9:03 pm, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
> So the tens of billions... no.  That is a silly figure.  What the heck could
> you be basing that on?  Maybe the number of hours people have put into it,
> as though effort alone creates value?  Really, where do you get this tens of
> billions idea?

http://libresoft.es/debian-counting/sarge/index.php?menu=Statistics

215M Lines of code / 2000 LOC per year * 100K salary = $10.8B

-Keith

Re: The crux of the matter DFS 5/16/11 9:15 PM
On 5/16/2011 11:57 PM, KeithCu wrote:
> On May 16, 8:48 pm, DFS<nos...@dfs.com>  wrote:
>> On 5/16/2011 11:37 PM, KeithCu wrote:
>>
>>> People don't consider the software valuable, but it is. Debian is
>>> worth $10s of billions of dollars.
>>
>> It's worth very little - effectively $0 - because the source was
>> released.  I have copies of some source, and I can compile them and give
>> the source and binaries away to everyone in the world, for no charge.
>
> It is sad that you have been hanging out in COLA for so long and you
> get these basic facts wrong. It is like saying if I decide to give a
> Ferrari away for free it means the Ferrari is worth nothing.


Are you really that dense?  Source can be copied and distributed
endlessly for nearly $0 - a Ferrari cannot even be copied once for less
than the cost of the original.

You're a blithering idiot, KeithCu.  There's no other way to say it.

>> The trademarks of some distros might be worth a little, but the open
>> sourced programs are essentially worthless.
>>
>> You can make money supporting the crapware, but overall the GPL and open
>> source is anti-success and pro-failure.  It's just ridiculous, really.
>>
>> Note: the cost to redevelop the Linux kernel and GNU utilities and
>> various OSS apps is very high, but that's a different issue.
>
> That is what we are discussing.


I missed where you said anything about redeveloping it.  You just made
the blanket claim that "Debian is


worth $10s of billions of dollars."

It's not.

Debian is only worth whatever discounted profit they generate doing
support and consulting (if any).  And the Debian trademark probably has
some small value, as does staff and experienced developers.

The Linux kernel and various Debian code and the utilities and apps are
worth almost nothing - again, because it's all been given away under the
ridiculous GPL.


Re: The crux of the matter Snit 5/16/11 9:16 PM
KeithCu stated in post
fac0e11f-7bf5-49f1-9861-5519a438b268@22g2000prx.googlegroups.com on 5/16/11
9:13 PM:

In other words, not based on anything related to market value.  Rather
silly, really.


--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]


Re: The crux of the matter DFS 5/16/11 9:18 PM


I knew you would snip and run from the challenge.  It's what you do.


==============================================================

==============================================================

Re: The crux of the matter Keith Curtis 5/16/11 9:19 PM
On May 16, 9:09 pm, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> KeithCu stated in post
> 0941dde4-64a9-4d96-b050-944d62e54...@l14g2000pro.googlegroups.com on 5/16/11

> 9:04 PM:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 16, 8:56 pm, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> >> KeithCu stated in post
> >> db84dfc2-70d1-4fb4-803c-85521bf9c...@k3g2000prl.googlegroups.com on 5/16/11
> >> 8:37 PM:
>
> >>> On May 16, 6:25 pm, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
> >>>> How do you know what capabilities the proprietary kernels have? Ok, you can
> >>>> make a pretty good guess. :) What are you thinking of though?
>
> >>> My book discusses them starting on page 24.
>
> >> So? I am asking *you*. If you answered this in your book then quote it.
> >> It gets old having you point elsewhere. Learn to answer questions.
>
> > I have answered it for you. I don't put it here because the pictures
> > and formatting are lost.
>
> > Here is a URL:
> >http://books.google.com/books?id=J7sB9-oQjvwC&lpg=PP1&dq=after%20the%...

> > e%20wars&pg=PA24#v=onepage&q&f=false
>
> Starting with an image that looks like it came from a messy Spirograph.
> Lovely.  The idea of simpler calls for web servers and the like is a
> reasoned point, though I do not have the background to know the accuracy of
> the claim.
>
> > Your list is good. I will look at whether I should talk about them in
> > the book. I have a chapter on challenges.
>
> Would love to hear your thoughts on the list.

It is a good list of features in various apps. Lots of software needs
to get better. Linux gets better as more people use it and join in.
People need to understand the potential and then they will. I've seen
Linux improve dramatically in the 5 years I've been using it. Progress
is slow, but it is getting better faster.

-Keith

Re: The crux of the matter Keith Curtis 5/16/11 9:24 PM
On May 16, 9:18 pm, DFS <nos...@dfs.com> wrote:
>
> I knew you would snip and run from the challenge.  It's what you do.

I never run from trolls, but I don't always spend time educating them.

However, I already did answer that question!

>
> ==============================================================
> Here's one list of categories of apps:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_software_categories
>
> [-] Application software> [-] System software> [-] Computer programming tools

My question (again) is: what free code runs on the ARM processor
versus proprietary code?

http://www.debian.org/ports/#released

-Keith

Re: The crux of the matter Snit 5/16/11 9:28 PM
KeithCu stated in post
050e2554-98dc-4d4b-b502-4ffd780a1aa5@s41g2000prb.googlegroups.com on 5/16/11
9:19 PM:

...


>>> Your list is good. I will look at whether I should talk about them in
>>> the book. I have a chapter on challenges.
>>
>> Would love to hear your thoughts on the list.
>
> It is a good list of features in various apps. Lots of software needs
> to get better. Linux gets better as more people use it and join in.

Agreed. And as more people use it, they will demand better quality (contrary
to the idea that you need a "mad dictator" to make things better - something
Homer recently told me.

> People need to understand the potential and then they will.

Right: there is a lot of potential.  People use current products, though -
not potential.

> I've seen
> Linux improve dramatically in the 5 years I've been using it. Progress
> is slow, but it is getting better faster.

Agreed.  

--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]


Re: The crux of the matter Hadron 5/16/11 10:35 PM
KeithCu <kei...@gmail.com> writes:

And your point is?

Re: The crux of the matter Hadron 5/16/11 10:43 PM
KeithCu <kei...@gmail.com> writes:

LOL.

When you first came walzting into COLA with your big ideas this was the
kind of "water is wet" statement you lead with to then pronounce that
"the world can be a better place". Face it Keith, not even any
"advocates" are backing you up now (except for Creepy obviously as he
hasnt bothered reading your nonsense).

You really ARE an idiot. When a "genius" (as pronounced by Chris
Liarsuck) like Homer laughs at you, you really need to take a step back
and rethink your positioning. As it is, you sound like a complete arse.

I feel sorry for you at this stage. You have ZERO idea about SW
development, ZERO idea about the economics of running a talented and
skilled team of programmers (how was it? "Wait til the PhD's
start...). Basically you're a fool who thinks that skills learnt from
others should be for free based on the fact they learnt from others. If
we all used your retarded way of thinking no one would ever earn
anything since we ALL learnt from those that went before.

You redefine retard in COLA. And *THAT* takes some doing.

Re: The crux of the matter Snit 5/16/11 10:51 PM
Hadron stated in post posjsdn...@news.eternal-september.org on 5/16/11
10:35 PM:

In an alternate universe, it might take billions of dollars to get what we
have for free.

Lucky us, eh?

But what do they have in the alternate universe?  I bet they have fat free
bacon that is amazingly good for you.

They win.

:)


--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]


Re: The crux of the matter Hadron 5/16/11 11:05 PM
Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> writes:


Especially when some clueless arsewipe (see if you can guess) states
openly in COLA that his BSD filesystem is noticeably faster than the
Linux ones ... LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Have these 'tards NO shame?

Re: The crux of the matter Keith Curtis 5/16/11 11:39 PM
On May 16, 10:51 pm, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> Hadron stated in post posjsdnb2y....@news.eternal-september.org on 5/16/11
> 10:35 PM:

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > KeithCu <keit...@gmail.com> writes:
>
> >> On May 16, 9:03 pm, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
> >>> So the tens of billions... no.  That is a silly figure.  What the heck could
> >>> you be basing that on?  Maybe the number of hours people have put into it,
> >>> as though effort alone creates value?  Really, where do you get this tens of
> >>> billions idea?
>
> >>http://libresoft.es/debian-counting/sarge/index.php?menu=Statistics
>
> >> 215M Lines of code / 2000 LOC per year * 100K salary = $10.8B
>
> >> -Keith
>
> > And your point is?
>
> In an alternate universe, it might take billions of dollars to get what we
> have for free.
>
> Lucky us, eh?
>
> But what do they have in the alternate universe?  I bet they have fat free
> bacon that is amazingly good for you.
>
> They win.
>
> :)

That is almost funny, but do you realize why it is wrong?

-Keith

Re: The crux of the matter Keith Curtis 5/16/11 11:53 PM
On May 16, 10:43 pm, Hadron<hadronqu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> LOL.
>
> When you first came walzting into COLA with your big ideas this was the
> kind of "water is wet" statement you lead with to then pronounce that
> "the world can be a better place". Face it Keith, not even any
> "advocates" are backing you up now (except for Creepy obviously as he
> hasnt bothered reading your nonsense).

We already went through this. Why again would I need any help arguing
with a foolish troll like you?

I also again recommend you quit with the groupthink. It says more
about you than me. You are from Europe? The incidence is higher over
there.

The dumbest thing I've done here is to not just ignore you as most of
the rest here do. If that makes me stupid, I'll plead guilty to that.
You meanwhile have spent years in a group where most of the people
ignore you and despise you. What does that say about you?

>
> You really ARE an idiot. When a "genius" (as pronounced by Chris
> Liarsuck) like Homer laughs at you, you really need to take a step back
> and rethink your positioning. As it is, you sound like a complete arse.

Please try to understand that your opinion of me is based on ignorance
and so it doesn't mean anything.

If you were that smart, you'd know this already. QED

-Keith

Re: The crux of the matter Chris Ahlstrom 5/17/11 3:17 AM
Keith Curtis wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:

Ignorance?  Nearly every post of "Hadron" is pig-ignorant, like the one you
just responded to.

--
Well, here I am in AMERICA..  I LIKE it.  I HATE it.  I LIKE it.  I
HATE it.  I LIKE it.  I HATE it.  I LIKE it.  I HATE it.  I LIKE ...
EMOTIONS are SWEEPING over me!!

Re: The crux of the matter chrisv 5/17/11 5:23 AM
> Hadron quacked:
>>
>> KeithCu writes:
>>>
>>> Hadron quacked:
>>>>
>>>> No wonder MS booted Keith out....
>>
>> > Hadron, you are a liar.
>>
>> No. I am not. I was trolling there. You can always tell when you see
>> "...." on the end.
>
>You were lying.
>
>> I doubt you even worked for MS.

Classic.  

The shameless liar "Hadron" Quack makes an utterly *groundless*
booted-out *lie*, and then accuses the other guy of lying!

What a POS!

Re: The crux of the matter Snit 5/17/11 7:30 AM
Keith Curtis stated in post
c33bbefe-bec1-45b0-be65-c24302933a11@f15g2000pro.googlegroups.com on 5/16/11
11:39 PM:

Bacon can never be fat free.

--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]


Re: The crux of the matter Snit 5/17/11 7:35 AM
Keith Curtis stated in post
48594550-7c6f-4022-8e96-390500afeafd@35g2000prp.googlegroups.com on 5/16/11
11:53 PM:

> On May 16, 10:43 pm, Hadron<hadronqu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> LOL.
>>
>> When you first came walzting into COLA with your big ideas this was the
>> kind of "water is wet" statement you lead with to then pronounce that
>> "the world can be a better place". Face it Keith, not even any
>> "advocates" are backing you up now (except for Creepy obviously as he
>> hasnt bothered reading your nonsense).
>
> We already went through this. Why again would I need any help arguing
> with a foolish troll like you?
>
> I also again recommend you quit with the groupthink. It says more
> about you than me. You are from Europe? The incidence is higher over
> there.
>
> The dumbest thing I've done here is to not just ignore you as most of
> the rest here do. If that makes me stupid, I'll plead guilty to that.
> You meanwhile have spent years in a group where most of the people
> ignore you and despise you. What does that say about you?

Your above rant is nothing but name calling.  Please try to make a point.

>> You really ARE an idiot. When a "genius" (as pronounced by Chris
>> Liarsuck) like Homer laughs at you, you really need to take a step back
>> and rethink your positioning. As it is, you sound like a complete arse.
>
> Please try to understand that your opinion of me is based on ignorance
> and so it doesn't mean anything.
>
> If you were that smart, you'd know this already. QED

If you really think your ideas are of value, then support them.  Do not use
cop-outs that in a few weeks you might.

--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]


Re: The crux of the matter flatfish+++ 5/17/11 7:53 AM

Keith Curis has to be some kind of bot experiment or a troll.
Nobody could be that dense, except Gotard, Jeb or Terry Porter.

Hell, even [Homer] disagrees with much of what Keith says.
That should tell you something about his motives.

--
flatfish+++
Please visit our hall of Linux idiots.
http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/

Watching Linux Fail:
http://limuxwatch.blogspot.com/
 
Desktop Linux: The Dream Is Dead
"By the time Microsoft released the Windows 7 beta
in January 2009, Linux had clearly lost its chance at desktop glory."
http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/207999/desktop_linux_the_dream_is_dead.html

Re: The crux of the matter flatfish+++ 5/17/11 7:54 AM

What's the going rate for endless "do loops" ?
I was pretty good at those when I was in college.

Note: I'm not, nor was I ever a programmer......

--
flatfish+++
Please visit our hall of Linux idiots.
http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/

Watching Linux Fail:
http://limuxwatch.blogspot.com/
 
Desktop Linux: The Dream Is Dead
"By the time Microsoft released the Windows 7 beta
in January 2009, Linux had clearly lost its chance at desktop glory."
http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/207999/desktop_linux_the_dream_is_dead.html

Re: The crux of the matter flatfish+++ 5/17/11 8:00 AM

I think Chris Ahlstrom could make a case for Idi Amin just being hungry
if it would help his position with the COLA cabal.

I never thought I would agree with [Homer] but in this case I do.
At least for most of his rebuttal to Keith.

 
> I feel sorry for you at this stage. You have ZERO idea about SW
> development, ZERO idea about the economics of running a talented and
> skilled team of programmers (how was it? "Wait til the PhD's
> start...). Basically you're a fool who thinks that skills learnt from
> others should be for free based on the fact they learnt from others. If
> we all used your retarded way of thinking no one would ever earn
> anything since we ALL learnt from those that went before.
>
> You redefine retard in COLA. And *THAT* takes some doing.

Ain't that the truth.
He has to be doing it on purpose.

I believe Schestowitz thinks Keith Curtis is a reverse troll planted to
make honest Linux users look bad.
I might be wrong but I know Roy and Keith have gone to battle.

His IP address, 71.231.137.151, pings to Seattle Wa.
Hmmmm....

--
flatfish+++
Please visit our hall of Linux idiots.
http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/

Watching Linux Fail:
http://limuxwatch.blogspot.com/
 
Desktop Linux: The Dream Is Dead
"By the time Microsoft released the Windows 7 beta
in January 2009, Linux had clearly lost its chance at desktop glory."
http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/207999/desktop_linux_the_dream_is_dead.html

Re: The crux of the matter JEDIDIAH 5/18/11 1:26 PM
On 2011-05-15, Hadron <hadro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> writes:
>
>> On 2011-05-15, amicus_curious <ac...@sti.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> "JEDIDIAH" <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote in message
>>> news:slrnisvm2d.hu1.jedi@nomad.mishnet...
>>>
>>>>
>>
>> [deletia]
>>
>>> enterprise applications, but your claim was that Microsoft uses closed data
>>> formats that preclude easy scaling when necessary.  Certainly there are no
>>
>>     I stated nothing of the sort.
>>
>>     Stop engaging in Hadronisms.
>
> Telling lies when you get caught exaggerating fools no one Jed.
>
> You most certainly DID make claims about MS formats...

   You need to be sent back to primary school and sent to english class.

--

   Apple: Being able to install Firefox or VLC makes you a power user.   |||
                                                                        / | \

Re: The crux of the matter Sinister Midget III 5/18/11 4:10 PM
On 2011-05-18, JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> claimed:

> On 2011-05-15, Hadron <hadro...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> Telling lies when you get caught exaggerating fools no one Jed.
>>
>> You most certainly DID make claims about MS formats...
>
>    You need to be sent back to primary school and sent to english class.

No. S/H/It needs to be sent to a 28-day program and then to AA.

Afterward a professional could determine if some english tutoring would
do any good.

--
The cat that ate the ball of yarn....had mittens!
Aspire One, Lubuntu 11.04
Friends don't let friends use Windows

Re: The crux of the matter Kelsey Bjarnason 5/18/11 7:37 PM
[snips]

On Sat, 14 May 2011 13:46:18 -0700, KeithCu wrote:

> On May 13, 5:19 am, "amicus_curious" <a...@sti.net> wrote:

>> > Software is inherently valuable. Each code change has added more and
>> > more value. If you have been adding more and more value to a
>> > codebase, how can you ask what value it is?
>>
>> Code has value only to the extent that it can be monetized in commerce.

I can't believe someone actually said that.  You should ask him how much
he pays for the air he breathes; if nothing, then obviously it has no
value - he should do without. :)


Re: The crux of the matter An Old Friend 5/19/11 6:36 AM
It's always possible that he requires an oxygen canister, in which case
the analogy still works. I have no idea if that is or is not the case,
but I was merely pointing out a plausible scenario that makes air
monetarily valuable on a personal level.
More topics »