Rex Ballard: I helped write the actual words of the GPL
DFS
net.legal newsgroups back in 1984. Gosling, I'm not sure if that's the same
Gosling of Java fame, had just come out with a version of emacs which
supported some very popular printers. The price tag for this "enhanced"
version was steep, something like $300/user. Many emacs users were sending
Richard nasty notes, and even threats, because they thought he had
deliberately ripped off the developers, thousands of whom had been working
on and enhancing emacs.
When Richard approach Gosling, he was rebuffed. Because the original version
was placed into the simtel-20 archives under a public domain license,
Richard had no legal control over derivative works.
He approached us in this newsgroup, and about 50 lawyers and others
experienced in copyright law went through the law books and legal judgements
to research the most effective ways to satisfy Richard Stallman's goals of
preventing people from simply taking the efforts of thousands of staff-years
and making a 2 staff-week enhancement then selling it for some rediculous
price to make $millions or $billions.
My own background was in performing arts management, where copyrights and
derivative rights including performance rights are very carefully watched
and monitored. There were others who were experienced intellectual property
rights lawyers, and even a professor from Cornel Law School.
As we reviewed the goals, we drafted the language for what was first known
as the "General Public License". A bit later, Richard Stallman formed the
GNU project and renamed it the GNU Public License.
The goals were very simple. Protect the efforts of thousands of
professionals, students, and hackers who had volunteered time, experience,
training, and effort, to create quality software in a collaborative
environment, by preventing the publication of proprietary variants.
Richard has been an outstanding guardian of that public trust, and now
maintains control of one of the largest, most diverse, and most advanced
software repositories in the world, surpassing even Microsoft's.
Not all of us agree with Richard on all points. I disagreed with his efforts
to let BISON "take ownership" of code which had been originally been created
as source code for commercial products such as compilers or intellegent
software. Eventually the issue was resolved with byacc which was a yacc-like
variant released under the terms of the BSD license.
At one time, the National Science Foundation's NCSA used a similar license.
Under this open source GPL style license, the Web Browser and Web Server,
along with thousands of other pieces of software commonly used today, were
created and enhanced. But in 1994, Spyglass was granted permission to sell
"Branding Rights" - the right to put a company logo and company sponsored
bookmarks into the initial configuration files. When Prodigy tried to get
rid of the ability to manually enter a URL, contributors balked, stating
that this was an unacceptable change to the source code. At best, they
wanted the source code so that they could put that address line back.
Spyglass secretly sold the rights to Microsoft, who added some last minute
changes to their version of the license, including the ability to make
proprietary, unpublished changes to the original Mosaic code.
When developers and contributors protested, loudly, the NCSA decided to
rewrite the NCSA license, and retroactively license all of the software in
it's archive under the new license. This was a bit like telling all of the
people in a suburban neighborhood that they were building an airport that
would have planes flying about 300 feet overhead, but offering nothing for
the damages and lost real-estate value.
Because it was a government agency making this decision, efforts to reclaim
the original rights under the original terms were quickly thwarted.
In retailation, contributors began publishing patches to the NCSA server,
but under the terms of a "Forced Giveback" license similar to the GPL.
Eventually, there were so many patches that the new server became known as
"A patchy" server. The madison avenue types changed the spelling to apache,
and this new server is still the most widely used server in the industry.
Richard has also been flexible. Under licenses such as the LGPL, it became
possible to create libraries which could run under GPL software, but would
allow commercial software to call these "bridge" libraries without having to
give back their source code.
One of the problem today, is that there are thousands of patches and
upgrades being released for Linux, which are only available under the terms
of the GPL and LGPL. This means that proprietary products such as Microsoft
Windows, SCO Unix, Apple OS/X, and numerous others, are unable to apply
well-known patches and upgrades which are not available under their less
restricted licenses.
Open Source has also been creating problems for those who are attempting to
patent software. In many cases, software patents involve disclosures of
source code, which often can be traced back to GPL and LGPL roots. This can
often nullify a patent, or place the patent itself under the legal umbrella
of GPL.
The problem is that companies like Microsoft and SCO want to feed from the
GPL trough, but they want to kill off the very contributors who keep adding
to and enhancing these GPL products."
spi...@freenet.co.uk
And?
Did you have a point Doofus?
--
______________________________________________________________________________
| spi...@freenet.co.uk | "Are you pondering what I'm pondering Pinky?" |
|Andrew Halliwell BSc(hons)| |
| in | "I think so brain, but this time, you control |
| Computer Science | the Encounter suit, and I'll do the voice..." |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Smith
comment on some other site:
> In retailation, contributors began publishing patches to the NCSA server,
> but under the terms of a "Forced Giveback" license similar to the GPL.
> Eventually, there were so many patches that the new server became known as
> "A patchy" server. The madison avenue types changed the spelling to
> apache, and this new server is still the most widely used server in the
> industry.
The original Apache licesne was not similar to the GPL. It was very similar
to the original BSD license (including the advertising clause the the FSF
believes is incompatible with the GPL).
--
--Tim Smith
DFS
A smart guy like you should be able to figure it out.
Mike
news:129c28l...@news.supernews.com...
And, according to the Apache folks, the "A Patchy Server" story is an urban
legend.
In Ballard's world, though, it's all fact, and like an Open Source Forrest
Gump, he was there, and made it all happen.
-- Mike --
Peter Köhlmann
Lets guess: You try an "Erik Funkenbusch". A character assassination
Figures. People like you are at the bottom of the dung heap
--
You're not my type. For that matter, you're not even my species
Erik Funkenbusch
> Lets guess: You try an "Erik Funkenbusch". A character assassination
> Figures. People like you are at the bottom of the dung heap
I suppose the irony is completely lost on you.
Peter Köhlmann
What "irony"?
You have done exactly that at least twice. And DumbFullShit has tried to
emulate you several times already. So pray tell, where is the "character
assassination" in this case, on my part?
--
You're genuinely bogus.
Erik Funkenbusch
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 19 Jun 2006 08:33:31 +0200, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>>
>>> Lets guess: You try an "Erik Funkenbusch". A character assassination
>>> Figures. People like you are at the bottom of the dung heap
>>
>> I suppose the irony is completely lost on you.
>
> What "irony"?
I rest my case.
Peter Köhlmann
> On Mon, 19 Jun 2006 08:47:42 +0200, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>
>> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 19 Jun 2006 08:33:31 +0200, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>>>
>>>> Lets guess: You try an "Erik Funkenbusch". A character assassination
>>>> Figures. People like you are at the bottom of the dung heap
>>>
>>> I suppose the irony is completely lost on you.
>>
>> What "irony"?
>
> I rest my case.
No. You snip and don't answer
Another trait of you, billwg and DFS
Here, let me help you. You snipped
---------------
"You have done exactly that at least twice. And DumbFullShit has tried to
emulate you several times already. So pray tell, where is the "character
assassination" in this case, on my part?"
----------------
And then want to "rest your case"
Interesting. Come on, Erik: why do you think you can do your "character
assassination" hobby unchallenged?
--
Microsoft: The company that made email dangerous
And web browsing. And viewing pictures. And...
William Poaster
09:09:13 +0200, Peter Köhlmann posted this:
You really think he'll give an answer to that?
After all, he hasn't answered these yet:-
1] Where does NTFS store its journal?
2] How did the Morris worm spread by email?
3] What about using MS TT fonts on Linux?
4]Can he provide evidence for plenty of examples of competing ISO
standards?
5] Why is ok for *him* (without asking permission) to publicise other
people's personal information, but if a person chooses to
publicise personal information about *himself*, it is "inappropriate".
6] What about the "thousands of root exploits per month" he claimed,
& was then found to be making it all up?
7] How does Funkenbusch *know* Roy didn't come by the picture he's
ranting about, honestly?
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/dbb4e98895553672?dmode=source&hl=en
http://makeashorterlink.com/?R21355C4D
8] How does he *know* that Roy does /not/ have the legitimate right to
use the picture despite what the copyright owner claims is the case?
--
www.jlaforums.com steals usenet newsgroup posts, & misleads the public
into thinking the posts come from their own forums. THEY DON'T!
This post was originally posted in a USENET newsgroup.
USENET is free to anyone with a newsreader.
spi...@freenet.co.uk
> In Ballard's world, though, it's all fact, and like an Open Source Forrest
> Gump, he was there, and made it all happen.
Can you prove in ANY way that he WAN'T there to HELP it all along?
He was one of 50 other people in the newsgroup/mailing list by his account
so even if he wasn't there things would've turned out much the same.
But can you prove he DIDN'T contribute something? Even if it's not something
significant?
I'd take his word over yours and doofus's any day of the week.
--
| |What to do if you find yourself stuck in a crack|
| spi...@freenet.co.uk |in the ground beneath a giant boulder, which you|
| |can't move, with no hope of rescue. |
|Andrew Halliwell BSc(hons)|Consider how lucky you are that life has been |
| in |good to you so far... |
| Computer Science | -The BOOK, Hitch-hiker's guide to the galaxy.|
Sinister Midget
He also hasn't answered where the setting is that makes slrn wrap at 74
characters either. But that one's still new (>24HRS). He's probably
studying the docs to find it even now.
Oops! No he's /not/ looking for it. He's busy trolling still. Maybe he
just hasn't seen that challenge yet. Like those you already listed from
weeks, months and years past.
I hope he finally gets those requests to back his previous claims. I'm
getting all tuckered out just waiting!
--
If God did not intend for us to eat animals, then why did he
make them out of meat?
-- John Cleese
William Poaster
So this is Number 9 on the list...
> I hope he finally gets those requests to back his previous claims. I'm
> getting all tuckered out just waiting!
It's been a while!
chrisv
I suppose you think that calling you a logically-handicapped
hypocrite, idiot, and creep, truisms that you demonstrate regularly in
here, is "character assassination"? It isn't. It's pointing-out the
obvious.
Peter Jensen
Hash: SHA1
Sinister Midget wrote:
> He also hasn't answered where the setting is that makes slrn wrap at
> 74 characters either. But that one's still new (>24HRS). He's probably
> studying the docs to find it even now.
Wait, what? And here I thought SLRN used an external editor, and didn't
reformat anything apart from adding quotation signs ...
Where did he say that?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFElxNyd1ZThqotgfgRAhkYAJ0ej4qT7uJ2mKTOG/KZRzwIBpOH3ACgrXOs
IES2QEJnvCRLPIbMCjiKOhs=
=Crm0
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
PeKaJe
Libtool shared library portability is only slightly more believable than
perpetual motion machines. Especially on AIX :)." -- David Leimbach
DFS
> Mike <mi...@nospam.com> did eloquently scribble:
>> In Ballard's world, though, it's all fact, and like an Open Source
>> Forrest Gump, he was there, and made it all happen.
>
> Can you prove in ANY way that he WAN'T there to HELP it all along?
> He was one of 50 other people in the newsgroup/mailing list by his
> account so even if he wasn't there things would've turned out much
> the same.
>
> But can you prove he DIDN'T contribute something? Even if it's not
> something significant?
>
> I'd take his word over yours and doofus's any day of the week.
Of course you would, even though you know Rex Ballard is a serial liar.
You have ZERO integrity.
spi...@freenet.co.uk
> Of course you would, even though you know Rex Ballard is a serial liar.
Why do I know rex is a serial liar?
Can you demonstrate this in ANY way?
Can you show anything he's said that you can PROVE is a lie?
> You have ZERO integrity.
Compared to you?
That's a laugh.
Sinister Midget
>
> Sinister Midget wrote:
>
>> He also hasn't answered where the setting is that makes slrn wrap at
>> 74 characters either. But that one's still new (>24HRS). He's probably
>> studying the docs to find it even now.
>
> Wait, what? And here I thought SLRN used an external editor, and didn't
> reformat anything apart from adding quotation signs ...
>
> Where did he say that?
Message-ID: <t2qox2lhxf0t$.d...@funkenbusch.com>
He never bothered to support that assertion either. I'm trying to
figure out if this is new behavior* or not.
* Making shit up, then running away when asked for some evidence.
--
The three rings of marriage: The engagement ring. the wedding
ring, and the suffering.
DFS
>>> Come on, Erik: why do you think you can do your
>>> "character assassination" hobby unchallenged?
What a laugh. What passes for "character" among most cola Linux regs is a
continuous stream of moronic lies about MS and Bill Gates and Windows.
William Poaster
00:00:28 +0000, Sinister Midget posted this:
> On 2006-06-19, Peter Jensen <use...@pekajemaps.homeip.net> posted something concerning:
>>
>> Sinister Midget wrote:
>>
>>> He also hasn't answered where the setting is that makes slrn wrap at
>>> 74 characters either. But that one's still new (>24HRS). He's probably
>>> studying the docs to find it even now.
>>
>> Wait, what? And here I thought SLRN used an external editor, and didn't
>> reformat anything apart from adding quotation signs ...
>>
>> Where did he say that?
>
> Message-ID: <t2qox2lhxf0t$.d...@funkenbusch.com>
>
> He never bothered to support that assertion either. I'm trying to
> figure out if this is new behavior* or not.
>
> * Making shit up, then running away when asked for some evidence.
Hardly new behaviour is it. I have a list of 8 of his previous
"statements" which he hasn't yet backed up,
(see Message-ID: <pan.2006.06.19....@kubuntu606.eu>)
.......& this looks like Number 9.
Da'Punk-A
I don't know whether Rex was "there" as the Open Source way was
founded, and I really don't care.
What does bother me (albeit slightly) is the way wintrolls bring up, in
this NG, stuff that has been claimed, written about, or whatever,
outside of this group. Like that business tp do with Roy's alleged
copyright violation: WTF has this got to do with Linux advocacy?
I'm not alone in believing that these constant swipes at the character
of a Linux advocate are the last-gasp attempts by a desperate Microsoft
to stop the Linux train.
DFS
> DFS wrote:
>> spi...@freenet.co.uk wrote:
>>> Mike <mi...@nospam.com> did eloquently scribble:
>>>> In Ballard's world, though, it's all fact, and like an Open Source
>>>> Forrest Gump, he was there, and made it all happen.
>>>
>>> Can you prove in ANY way that he WAN'T there to HELP it all along?
>>> He was one of 50 other people in the newsgroup/mailing list by his
>>> account so even if he wasn't there things would've turned out much
>>> the same.
>>>
>>> But can you prove he DIDN'T contribute something? Even if it's not
>>> something significant?
>>>
>>> I'd take his word over yours and doofus's any day of the week.
>>
>>
>> Of course you would, even though you know Rex Ballard is a serial
>> liar.
>>
>> You have ZERO integrity.
>
> I don't know whether Rex was "there" as the Open Source way was
> founded, and I really don't care.
You really don't? Then, like spike1, you also have no integrity.
If it was me [or another non-Linux "advocate"] making the same ridiculous
claims as Rex Ballard, you sure would care. You and cola would be in
high-hysterics mode. But since Rex advocates Linux, he gets a free pass
from almost everybody, for everything he writes. You clowns devote 20 posts
to refuting a single claim of Erik Funkenbusch's, but you let stand Rex
Ballard's lunatic claims that his "work led to Java and Linux", that he
personally wrote some of the actual wording of the GPL, that MS controls who
gets elected, etc. etc.
Hypocrisy: it's all in a day's work for a cola advocate.
> What does bother me (albeit slightly) is the way wintrolls bring up,
> in this NG, stuff that has been claimed, written about, or whatever,
> outside of this group. Like that business tp do with Roy's alleged
> copyright violation: WTF has this got to do with Linux advocacy?
They have a lot to do with the "character" of a Linux advocate who insults
MS for the same kind of actions he engages in.
Besides, WTF do Roy Schestowitz's lying NEWS threads about MS and Windows
have to do with Linux advocacy? Why haven't you questioned him? (I'm
assuming you haven't).
What do nessuno's threads about MS and Windows have to do with Linux
advocacy? What do 75% of the threads in here have to do with Linux
advocacy? Nothing, that's what.
And both Roy Schestowitz and Rex Ballard publicize their websites on cola;
thus they are inviting readers to review and reply.
> I'm not alone in believing that these constant swipes at the character
> of a Linux advocate are the last-gasp attempts by a desperate
> Microsoft to stop the Linux train.
What you again fail to understand is most cola Linux "advocates" have no
character. Rex Ballard in particular is just a laughingstock. Roy
Schestowitz is not far below him.
spi...@freenet.co.uk
> claims as Rex Ballard, you sure would care. You and cola would be in
> high-hysterics mode. But since Rex advocates Linux, he gets a free pass
> from almost everybody, for everything he writes.
You still haven't given us a single crumb of proof that anything Rex has
said was a lie. Back it up or shut up.
> And both Roy Schestowitz and Rex Ballard publicize their websites on cola;
> thus they are inviting readers to review and reply.
They "publicise their websites"?
Where? In their signatures that most people who know how to configure a
newsreader don't even see?
>> I'm not alone in believing that these constant swipes at the character
>> of a Linux advocate are the last-gasp attempts by a desperate
>> Microsoft to stop the Linux train.
> What you again fail to understand is most cola Linux "advocates" have no
> character. Rex Ballard in particular is just a laughingstock. Roy
> Schestowitz is not far below him.
Again, proof that anything he said is a lie.
Come on, either you know something we don't know, or you're making it all up
as you go along yet again.
--
______________________________________________________________________________
| spi...@freenet.co.uk | "I'm alive!!! I can touch! I can taste! |
|Andrew Halliwell BSc(hons)| I can SMELL!!! KRYTEN!!! Unpack Rachel and |
| in | get out the puncture repair kit!" |
| Computer Science | Arnold Judas Rimmer- Red Dwarf |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DFS
> DFS <nospam@dfs_.com> did eloquently scribble:
>> If it was me [or another non-Linux "advocate"] making the same
>> ridiculous claims as Rex Ballard, you sure would care. You and cola
>> would be in high-hysterics mode. But since Rex advocates Linux, he
>> gets a free pass from almost everybody, for everything he writes.
>
> You still haven't given us a single crumb of proof that anything Rex
> has said was a lie. Back it up or shut up.
Let's get started, spike:
Rex Ballard: "I wrote the initial specification for shttp"
But every (and I do mean every) 'Net reference say the initial SHTTP spec
was written by E. Rescorla and A. Schiffman of Enterprise Integration
Technologies.
http://www.homeport.org/~adam/shttp.html
http://www.terisa.com/shttp/current.txt
http://www.geocities.com/basicsofcomputing/s/shttp.htm
http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/S/S_HTTP.html
>> And both Roy Schestowitz and Rex Ballard publicize their websites on
>> cola; thus they are inviting readers to review and reply.
>
> They "publicise their websites"?
> Where? In their signatures that most people who know how to configure
> a newsreader don't even see?
>
>>> I'm not alone in believing that these constant swipes at the
>>> character of a Linux advocate are the last-gasp attempts by a
>>> desperate Microsoft to stop the Linux train.
>
>> What you again fail to understand is most cola Linux "advocates"
>> have no character. Rex Ballard in particular is just a
>> laughingstock. Roy Schestowitz is not far below him.
>
> Again, proof that anything he said is a lie.
> Come on, either you know something we don't know, or you're making it
> all up as you go along yet again.
DFS
> You still haven't given us a single crumb of proof that anything Rex
> has said was a lie. Back it up or shut up.
http://www.open4success.org/bio/Auto02.html
Rex Ballard: "It was then that my aviation club teacher showed me a film of
some "toys"
which the military had developed out of notes taken from my locker."
This one always makes me LOL!
DFS
> You still haven't given us a single crumb of proof that anything Rex
> has said was a lie. Back it up or shut up.
Rex Ballard: "Contributor to General Public License (GPL) software pool,
including work-for-hire that lead to JAVA (Dow Data Protocol), Client/Server
computing (RPC), and Linux."
DFS
> You still haven't given us a single crumb of proof that anything Rex
> has said was a lie. Back it up or shut up.
Rex Ballard: Microsoft used my ideas in Windows 2000.
"They [Microsoft] spent 18 hours pumping me for design ideas for Windows
2000 and then withdrew their offer (which I wasn't going to accept anyway).
They said I didn't have the "Microsoft Religion". But they incorporated
about 20 of the 30 reccomendations I proposed."
DFS
> You still haven't given us a single crumb of proof that anything Rex
> has said was a lie. Back it up or shut up.
Rex Ballard: "In a matter of six months, I had generated a 4 billion dollar
industry."
http://www.open4success.org/bio/Auto07.html
Linonut
> --
> The three rings of marriage: The engagement ring. the wedding
> ring, and the suffering.
Sig not funny. Sig too true.
--
IEF630I BAD MACNAM
12.32.57 SYS2 R=IEF450I COLA LINONUT TROLL-ABEND S0C7 UBR549
-
Linonut
> What you again fail to understand is most cola Linux "advocates" have no
> character. Rex Ballard in particular is just a laughingstock. Roy
> Schestowitz is not far below him.
One problem with Rex and Roy is the volume of material. I just can't be
bothered to do more than glance at the material, most of the time.
Also, the [NEWS] marker merely cuts out some of the Subject line (I use
slrn), making it more difficult to discern if the topic looks
interesting.
Time is short, so I cut corners in COLA. Erik and Tim's claims are
usually more succinct, and thus get more eyeballing from me.
Jamie Hart
>
> What you again fail to understand is most cola Linux "advocates" have no
> character. Rex Ballard in particular is just a laughingstock. Roy
> Schestowitz is not far below him.
>
Rex may embroider the truth when it comes to his personal involvement in
the open source movement, but he discusses issues calmly and logically
and often uses checkable information.
Roy posts a great deal of "News" posts, which seems to offend you, but
the stats show that lot's of people appreciate them and they generate a
large number of responses (the stats show Roy as both the most active
poster and receiver of the most replies).
The actions of these individuals are what make them valued members of
the group.
You on the other hand, are _not_ a valued member of the group. Here too,
it is the actions of the person that led to their status.
Fortunately, no one here is going to take anyones word, least of all
yours that Roy and Rex (*) aren't valued.
(*) Is it just me or does that sound like the name of a cheesy 80s "cop
and a dog" show?
DFS
> After takin' a swig o' grog, DFS belched out this bit o' wisdom:
>
>> What you again fail to understand is most cola Linux "advocates"
>> have no character. Rex Ballard in particular is just a
>> laughingstock. Roy Schestowitz is not far below him.
>
> One problem with Rex and Roy is the volume of material. I just can't
> be bothered to do more than glance at the material, most of the time.
I think Rex has a prodigious intellect, but I believe he suffers from mild
schizophrenia, along with narcissism and whatever is the medical term for
'garbage of the mouth'.
> Also, the [NEWS] marker merely cuts out some of the Subject line (I
> use slrn), making it more difficult to discern if the topic looks
> interesting.
I used to read some of his NEWS links, but too often the title turned out to
be a blatant lie that didn't reflect the content it purported to. So I
plonked them. Then he started talking anal trash. So I plonked him.
> Time is short, so I cut corners in COLA. Erik and Tim's claims are
> usually more succinct, and thus get more eyeballing from me.
Yes. A couple paragraphs at most should be plenty to get the point across.
Tim Smith
wrote:
> You still haven't given us a single crumb of proof that anything Rex has
> said was a lie. Back it up or shut up.
> Again, proof that anything he said is a lie. Come on, either you know
> something we don't know, or you're making it all up as you go along yet
> again.
Use Google. A few Linux advocates (Jesse Hughes, for example) have posted
detailed responses to some of Rex's claims, showing the problems (and
thereby refuting the claim that Linux advocates never call him on this
stuff).
--
--Tim Smith
Da'Punk-A
DFS wrote:
> Da'Punk-A wrote:
> > DFS wrote:
> >> spi...@freenet.co.uk wrote:
> >>> Mike <mi...@nospam.com> did eloquently scribble:
> >>>> In Ballard's world, though, it's all fact, and like an Open Source
> >>>> Forrest Gump, he was there, and made it all happen.
> >>>
> >>> Can you prove in ANY way that he WAN'T there to HELP it all along?
> >>> He was one of 50 other people in the newsgroup/mailing list by his
> >>> account so even if he wasn't there things would've turned out much
> >>> the same.
> >>>
> >>> But can you prove he DIDN'T contribute something? Even if it's not
> >>> something significant?
> >>>
> >>> I'd take his word over yours and doofus's any day of the week.
> >>
> >>
> >> Of course you would, even though you know Rex Ballard is a serial
> >> liar.
> >>
> >> You have ZERO integrity.
> >
> > I don't know whether Rex was "there" as the Open Source way was
> > founded, and I really don't care.
>
> You really don't? Then, like spike1, you also have no integrity.
LOL! The wintroll speaks of integrity!
If you're not a troll, that means you have decided that I have no
integrity, just by what I've written in this newsgroup.
Since no one could make a valid character judgement on such flimsy
evidence, you must be a troll.
> If it was me [or another non-Linux "advocate"] making the same ridiculous
> claims as Rex Ballard, you sure would care. You and cola would be in
> high-hysterics mode. But since Rex advocates Linux, he gets a free pass
> from almost everybody, for everything he writes. You clowns devote 20 posts
> to refuting a single claim of Erik Funkenbusch's, but you let stand Rex
> Ballard's lunatic claims that his "work led to Java and Linux", that he
> personally wrote some of the actual wording of the GPL, that MS controls who
> gets elected, etc. etc.
>
> Hypocrisy: it's all in a day's work for a cola advocate.
Rex either was there at the birth of FOSS, or he's a harmless nut. And
I don't think I've read anything by him that's wildly anti-Microsoft.
If he is a harmless nut, what's your problem? You like easy targets?
As for me going into high-hysterics mode - when have I been hysterical?
Surely the occasional use of capital letters and exclamation marks
doesn't equate with hysteria? If it does, you're a fine one to talk!
LOL!!
> > What does bother me (albeit slightly) is the way wintrolls bring up,
> > in this NG, stuff that has been claimed, written about, or whatever,
> > outside of this group. Like that business tp do with Roy's alleged
> > copyright violation: WTF has this got to do with Linux advocacy?
>
> They have a lot to do with the "character" of a Linux advocate who insults
> MS for the same kind of actions he engages in.
>
> Besides, WTF do Roy Schestowitz's lying NEWS threads about MS and Windows
> have to do with Linux advocacy? Why haven't you questioned him? (I'm
> assuming you haven't).
>
> What do nessuno's threads about MS and Windows have to do with Linux
> advocacy? What do 75% of the threads in here have to do with Linux
> advocacy? Nothing, that's what.
>
> And both Roy Schestowitz and Rex Ballard publicize their websites on cola;
> thus they are inviting readers to review and reply.
Roy's links to other sites can be informative and interesting. Some of
them don't interest me, but someone else may love them.
As COLA is about Linux and its alternatives, it would be wrong if there
were no discussion about Microsoft and Windows.
> > I'm not alone in believing that these constant swipes at the character
> > of a Linux advocate are the last-gasp attempts by a desperate
> > Microsoft to stop the Linux train.
>
> What you again fail to understand is most cola Linux "advocates" have no
> character. Rex Ballard in particular is just a laughingstock. Roy
> Schestowitz is not far below him.
And where are /you/ on this scale of characterlessness? Hmm? LMAO!!
Whoops! Pardon the hysterics.
Da'Punk-A
DFS wrote:
> Da'Punk-A wrote:
> > DFS wrote:
> >> spi...@freenet.co.uk wrote:
> >>> Mike <mi...@nospam.com> did eloquently scribble:
> >>>> In Ballard's world, though, it's all fact, and like an Open Source
> >>>> Forrest Gump, he was there, and made it all happen.
> >>>
> >>> Can you prove in ANY way that he WAN'T there to HELP it all along?
> >>> He was one of 50 other people in the newsgroup/mailing list by his
> >>> account so even if he wasn't there things would've turned out much
> >>> the same.
> >>>
> >>> But can you prove he DIDN'T contribute something? Even if it's not
> >>> something significant?
> >>>
> >>> I'd take his word over yours and doofus's any day of the week.
> >>
> >>
> >> Of course you would, even though you know Rex Ballard is a serial
> >> liar.
> >>
> >> You have ZERO integrity.
> >
> > I don't know whether Rex was "there" as the Open Source way was
> > founded, and I really don't care.
>
> You really don't? Then, like spike1, you also have no integrity.
LOL! The wintroll speaks of integrity!
If you're not a troll, that means you have decided that I have no
integrity, just by what I've written in this newsgroup.
Since no one could make a valid character judgement on such flimsy
evidence, you must be a troll.
> If it was me [or another non-Linux "advocate"] making the same ridiculous
> claims as Rex Ballard, you sure would care. You and cola would be in
> high-hysterics mode. But since Rex advocates Linux, he gets a free pass
> from almost everybody, for everything he writes. You clowns devote 20 posts
> to refuting a single claim of Erik Funkenbusch's, but you let stand Rex
> Ballard's lunatic claims that his "work led to Java and Linux", that he
> personally wrote some of the actual wording of the GPL, that MS controls who
> gets elected, etc. etc.
>
> Hypocrisy: it's all in a day's work for a cola advocate.
Rex either was there at the birth of FOSS, or he's a harmless nut. And
I don't think I've read anything by him that's wildly anti-Microsoft.
If he is a harmless nut, what's your problem? You like easy targets?
As for me going into high-hysterics mode - when have I been hysterical?
Surely the occasional use of capital letters and exclamation marks
doesn't equate with hysteria? If it does, you're a fine one to talk!
LOL!!
> > What does bother me (albeit slightly) is the way wintrolls bring up,
> > in this NG, stuff that has been claimed, written about, or whatever,
> > outside of this group. Like that business tp do with Roy's alleged
> > copyright violation: WTF has this got to do with Linux advocacy?
>
> They have a lot to do with the "character" of a Linux advocate who insults
> MS for the same kind of actions he engages in.
>
> Besides, WTF do Roy Schestowitz's lying NEWS threads about MS and Windows
> have to do with Linux advocacy? Why haven't you questioned him? (I'm
> assuming you haven't).
>
> What do nessuno's threads about MS and Windows have to do with Linux
> advocacy? What do 75% of the threads in here have to do with Linux
> advocacy? Nothing, that's what.
>
> And both Roy Schestowitz and Rex Ballard publicize their websites on cola;
> thus they are inviting readers to review and reply.
Roy's links to other sites can be informative and interesting. Some of
them don't interest me, but someone else may love them.
As COLA is about Linux and its alternatives, it would be wrong if there
were no discussion about Microsoft and Windows.
> > I'm not alone in believing that these constant swipes at the character
> > of a Linux advocate are the last-gasp attempts by a desperate
> > Microsoft to stop the Linux train.
>
> What you again fail to understand is most cola Linux "advocates" have no
> character. Rex Ballard in particular is just a laughingstock. Roy
> Schestowitz is not far below him.
And where are /you/ on this scale of characterlessness? Hmm? LMAO!!
Whoops! Pardon the hysterics.
DFS
> DFS wrote:
>>
>> What you again fail to understand is most cola Linux "advocates"
>> have no character. Rex Ballard in particular is just a
>> laughingstock. Roy Schestowitz is not far below him.
>>
> Do you really expect anybody here to believe that?
I expect everyone to believe what they want to believe.
> Rex may embroider the truth when it comes to his personal involvement
> in the open source movement,
You think?
> but he discusses issues calmly and
> logically and often uses checkable information.
And what happens when you check it? You find most of it is lies. Then he
backpedals and sometimes says "Thanks for that information." But the fact
is, he continually posts negative lies about MS and positive lies about
Linux.
> Roy posts a great deal of "News" posts, which seems to offend you,
I couldn't care less how much he posts. I plonked his NEWS posts first,
after seeing how dishonest they were. Then I plonked him.
> but
> the stats show that lot's of people appreciate them and they generate
> a large number of responses (the stats show Roy as both the most
> active poster and receiver of the most replies).
ROFL! Get over yourself. He gets far fewer replies per post than me or
Erik Funkenbusch. Hardly anyone reads his 350+ weekly news posts. And
Rex's long labors of lying Linux lies are practically impossible to read
without gagging.
> The actions of these individuals are what make them valued members of
> the group.
Rex's fantasies and lies are very humorous, so yes, that makes him valuable.
> You on the other hand, are _not_ a valued member of the group.
I used to be the man on cola. I used to be the most prolific poster, and
the most replied to.
> Here too, it is the actions of the person that led to their status.
>
> Fortunately, no one here is going to take anyones word, least of all
> yours that Roy and Rex (*) aren't valued.
>
> (*) Is it just me or does that sound like the name of a cheesy 80s
> "cop and a dog" show?
Don't call Rex a dog; he's closer to a god. Rex's work led to Java and
Linux. Sun "reworked his [Dow Data Protocol] code a bit" and released it as
Java. Rex created the video sales industry and the computer sales industry
(don't ask me what those mean, it's his claim). Rex created Netscape/the
web browsing industry in a few months - just by typing replies to online
mailing lists. Rex increased FedEx's operating income by $750 million
within a few months of beginning work there. Because of Rex, FedEx won the
Malcolm Baldridge Quality Award (unfortunately they rewarded him by forcing
him out of the company first). Rex is an "unofficial" Novell CNE #5. Rex
wrote the specs for secure http. Rex called for Linux to "take the desktop"
and a year later Linus Torvalds himself took up the cause. Rex wrote some
of the actual words of the first GPL. Martin-Marietta developed military
weaponry out of handwritten notes Rex made in high school, which they stole
out of his locker (hee!). Microsoft incorporated 20 of Rex's 30 design
recommendations into Windows 2000. MS used Rex's recommendations in DOS as
well. Rex invented the concept of remote procedure calls. Rex saved IBM
$23.9 million. Rex worked on "one of the first digitized voice response
systems."
Now do you understand? Only an earth-bound deity could do so much.
spi...@freenet.co.uk
> backpedals and sometimes says "Thanks for that information." But the fact
> is, he continually posts negative lies about MS and positive lies about
> Linux.
For example?
>> You on the other hand, are _not_ a valued member of the group.
> I used to be the man on cola. I used to be the most prolific poster, and
> the most replied to.
And the biggest arsehole, the most hated poster perhaps, doesn't make you
"Valued". Most of the posts replying to you were taking the piss out of your
lies cos they were so stupid and/or transparent.
It's been said a few times but one of your comments still makes me chuckle.
"You wouldn't be posting here if it weren't for microsoft"
> Now do you understand? Only an earth-bound deity could do so much.
Bullshit.
Quite frankly. Utter bullshit.
It's very possible for someone to have an extremely successful and prolific
career. And it's very possible that rex was in the right place at the right
time to DO a lot (if not all) of those things.
--
______________________________________________________________________________
| spi...@freenet.co.uk | |
|Andrew Halliwell BSc(hons)| "ARSE! GERLS!! DRINK! DRINK! DRINK!!!" |
| in | "THAT WOULD BE AN ECUMENICAL MATTER!...FECK!!!! |
| Computer Science | - Father Jack in "Father Ted" |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Smith
wrote:
> It's very possible for someone to have an extremely successful and
> prolific career. And it's very possible that rex was in the right place at
> the right time to DO a lot (if not all) of those things.
How do you explain the massive industry-wide amnesia that has made
EVERYONE ELSE who was there completely forget about him, when they've
written their own histories of those events, or told their stories to the
press?
--
--Tim Smith
Jamie Hart
> Jamie Hart wrote:
>> DFS wrote:
>>> What you again fail to understand is most cola Linux "advocates"
>>> have no character. Rex Ballard in particular is just a
>>> laughingstock. Roy Schestowitz is not far below him.
>>>
>> Do you really expect anybody here to believe that?
>
> I expect everyone to believe what they want to believe.
>
>
>> Rex may embroider the truth when it comes to his personal involvement
>> in the open source movement,
>
> You think?
>
Yeah, I do. So?
>
>> but he discusses issues calmly and
>> logically and often uses checkable information.
>
> And what happens when you check it? You find most of it is lies. Then he
> backpedals and sometimes says "Thanks for that information." But the fact
> is, he continually posts negative lies about MS and positive lies about
> Linux.
>
Nope, you're expecting people to believe you without proof again.
>
>
>
>> Roy posts a great deal of "News" posts, which seems to offend you,
>
> I couldn't care less how much he posts. I plonked his NEWS posts first,
> after seeing how dishonest they were. Then I plonked him.
>
Then don't you think it's time you stopped bitching about him?
>
>
>> but
>> the stats show that lot's of people appreciate them and they generate
>> a large number of responses (the stats show Roy as both the most
>> active poster and receiver of the most replies).
>
> ROFL! Get over yourself. He gets far fewer replies per post than me or
> Erik Funkenbusch.
But still gets more replies overall than both of you put together.
> Hardly anyone reads his 350+ weekly news posts. And
> Rex's long labors of lying Linux lies are practically impossible to read
> without gagging.
>
More unsubstantiated opinion.
>
>
>> The actions of these individuals are what make them valued members of
>> the group.
>
> Rex's fantasies and lies are very humorous, so yes, that makes him valuable.
>
Yep, we value him.
>
>
>
>> You on the other hand, are _not_ a valued member of the group.
>
> I used to be the man on cola. I used to be the most prolific poster, and
> the most replied to.
>
You used to be an arsehole, why haven't you changed?
>
>
>> Here too, it is the actions of the person that led to their status.
>>
>> Fortunately, no one here is going to take anyones word, least of all
>> yours that Roy and Rex (*) aren't valued.
>>
>> (*) Is it just me or does that sound like the name of a cheesy 80s
>> "cop and a dog" show?
>
> Don't call Rex a dog; he's closer to a god.
Snip more personal attacks from DFS.
spi...@freenet.co.uk
It's also quite possible to work amongst a group and not be noticed, to not
be forceful or loudmouthed and thus forgotten. These people do a HECK of a
lot of the work that other people then take the credit for, he might not
have been one of the bosses, but one of the "underlings" the bosses took the
credit from.
Quite common practice.
"Oh, ballard... Write up a spec for a secure http, I expect it on my desk by
friday"
kinda thing.
Don't discount things people say as lies just because YOU can't find any
documentary evidence on the internet. It isn't all seeing and all knowing.
Some of his claims ARE about having something taken and used without giving
him the credit. Can you disprove those?
Any more than you can disprove that I worked in a small company in london
and installed systems destined for NASA or British Telecom?
--
______________________________________________________________________________
| spi...@freenet.co.uk | |
|Andrew Halliwell BSc(hons)| "The day Microsoft makes something that doesn't |
| in | suck is probably the day they start making |
| Computer science | vacuum cleaners" - Ernst Jan Plugge |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DFS
> DFS wrote:
>> And what happens when you check it? You find most of it is lies. Then he
>> backpedals and sometimes says "Thanks for that information."
>> But the fact is, he continually posts negative lies about MS and
>> positive lies about Linux.
>>
> Nope, you're expecting people to believe you without proof again.
Then go and do some checking on his "information" yourself. Begin your
quest with this quote he made: "There are times when I am just typing as
fast as I can and I start spewing bilge that even I'm not terribly proud
of."
>>> The actions of these individuals are what make them valued members
>>> of the group.
>>
>> Rex's fantasies and lies are very humorous, so yes, that makes him
>> valuable.
> Yep, we value him.
Yep, in the same way you "value" Pauly Shore - for abrasive and pitiful
comic relief only. Only an insano would take Rex Ballard seriously.
>>> You on the other hand, are _not_ a valued member of the group.
>>
>> I used to be the man on cola. I used to be the most prolific
>> poster, and the most replied to.
>>
> You used to be an arsehole, why haven't you changed?
Something about cola just makes me that way.
>>> Here too, it is the actions of the person that led to their status.
>>>
>>> Fortunately, no one here is going to take anyones word, least of all
>>> yours that Roy and Rex (*) aren't valued.
>>>
>>> (*) Is it just me or does that sound like the name of a cheesy 80s
>>> "cop and a dog" show?
>>
>> Don't call Rex a dog; he's closer to a god.
>
> Snip more personal attacks from DFS.
Not a single personal attack in that paragraph you snipped. Those are
direct quotes or my summaries of Rex's claims from his website, his cola
posts, or other public posts he's made to the Internet. Every single one of
them can be found online.
The fact that you and most of cola refuse to strongly disavow his absurd
lies - and in the case of spike1 actually support them - because Rex backs
Linux, proves what kind of people "Linux advocates" are.
DFS
> Tim Smith <reply_i...@mouse-potato.com> did eloquently scribble:
>
>
>> In article <4demm3-...@ridcully.fsnet.co.uk>,
>> spi...@freenet.co.uk wrote:
>>> It's very possible for someone to have an extremely successful and
>>> prolific career. And it's very possible that rex was in the right
>>> place at the right time to DO a lot (if not all) of those things.
>
>> How do you explain the massive industry-wide amnesia that has made
>> EVERYONE ELSE who was there completely forget about him, when they've
>> written their own histories of those events, or told their stories
>> to the press?
>
> It's also quite possible to work amongst a group and not be noticed,
> to not be forceful or loudmouthed and thus forgotten. These people do
> a HECK of a lot of the work that other people then take the credit
> for, he might not have been one of the bosses, but one of the
> "underlings" the bosses took the credit from.
>
> Quite common practice.
I see he reeled you in hook-line-sinker. How gullible can you be?
> "Oh, ballard... Write up a spec for a secure http, I expect it on my
> desk by friday"
>
> kinda thing.
>
> Don't discount things people say as lies just because YOU can't find
> any documentary evidence on the internet. It isn't all seeing and all
> knowing.
And here you just backed yourself into a corner. Nothing (N-O-T-H-I-N-G)
Rex claims about his disputed "accomplishments" can be substantiated online,
even though many of his claims are about online and computer technology.
The real people and situations and history and technologies are exhaustively
documented online and elsewhere, in hundreds of sources, but Rex
Ballard - creator of all these technologies - somehow escaped everyone's
mind.
> Some of his claims ARE about having something taken and used without
> giving him the credit. Can you disprove those?
Rex has a ready excuse for these as well: he was behind the scenes, working
anonymously, slipping papers and suggestions under people's doors, standing
over their shoulders and coaching them, etc... LOL! (he actually said
those things)
> Any more than you can disprove that I worked in a small company in
> london and installed systems destined for NASA or British Telecom?
That can easily be proven or disproven if you give us the name of the
company.
Most of Rex's lies can be proven by a complete lack of evidence
for his claim, or by the existence of mounds of opposing evidence. You have
to be an utter fool to actually believe his claim [paraphrasing] "Sun
reworked my Dow Data Protocol code a bit and released it as Java." Are you
an utter fool?
Those lies of his that can't be factually dismissed (eg he increased FedEx
revenue $700+ million in a few months) are so absurd there's no sense in
discussing them.
He's just a man-child wanting attention. Why he feels the need to claim
credit for others' work is between him and a shrink.
Jamie Hart
> Jamie Hart wrote:
>> DFS wrote:
>
>>> And what happens when you check it? You find most of it is lies. Then he
>>> backpedals and sometimes says "Thanks for that information."
>>> But the fact is, he continually posts negative lies about MS and
>>> positive lies about Linux.
>>>
>> Nope, you're expecting people to believe you without proof again.
>
> Then go and do some checking on his "information" yourself. Begin your
> quest with this quote he made: "There are times when I am just typing as
> fast as I can and I start spewing bilge that even I'm not terribly proud
> of."
>
I tend to check a lot of what people say here, a) because I'm interested
in knowing more, and b) because of the amount of bullshit that gets posted.
>
>
>>>> The actions of these individuals are what make them valued members
>>>> of the group.
>>> Rex's fantasies and lies are very humorous, so yes, that makes him
>>> valuable.
>> Yep, we value him.
>
> Yep, in the same way you "value" Pauly Shore - for abrasive and pitiful
> comic relief only. Only an insano would take Rex Ballard seriously.
>
There you go again, trying to tell me what I think. Hasn't worked
before and it won't work now.
>
>>>> You on the other hand, are _not_ a valued member of the group.
>>> I used to be the man on cola. I used to be the most prolific
>>> poster, and the most replied to.
>>>
>> You used to be an arsehole, why haven't you changed?
>
> Something about cola just makes me that way.
>
There you go. Even you admit it, so why should I take your word for
anything?
>
>>>> Here too, it is the actions of the person that led to their status.
>>>>
>>>> Fortunately, no one here is going to take anyones word, least of all
>>>> yours that Roy and Rex (*) aren't valued.
>>>>
>>>> (*) Is it just me or does that sound like the name of a cheesy 80s
>>>> "cop and a dog" show?
>>> Don't call Rex a dog; he's closer to a god.
>> Snip more personal attacks from DFS.
>
> Not a single personal attack in that paragraph you snipped. Those are
> direct quotes or my summaries of Rex's claims from his website, his cola
> posts, or other public posts he's made to the Internet. Every single one of
> them can be found online.
>
And not one of them had any place in this discussion, you posted them
for the express purpose of making me (and others) think less of Rex,
didn't work but that's why you posted them.
If that doesn't qualify as a personal attack I don't know what does.
> The fact that you and most of cola refuse to strongly disavow his absurd
> lies - and in the case of spike1 actually support them - because Rex backs
> Linux, proves what kind of people "Linux advocates" are.
>
Yeah, yeah, we're all nasty 'orrible people. So what? Does it matter
one iota in the grand scheme of things?
Would you be acting this way if we were Windows advocates doing the same?
Forget that question, I've already checked and know the answer.
spi...@freenet.co.uk
>> to not be forceful or loudmouthed and thus forgotten. These people do
>> a HECK of a lot of the work that other people then take the credit
>> for, he might not have been one of the bosses, but one of the
>> "underlings" the bosses took the credit from.
>>
>> Quite common practice.
> I see he reeled you in hook-line-sinker. How gullible can you be?
Like I'd believe anything you said.
Besides, I'm not saying I believe him, or don't believe him.
I'm just making the point that it is quite possible to achieve a lot in your
career without leaving much of a mark that points back to you.
>> "Oh, ballard... Write up a spec for a secure http, I expect it on my
>> desk by friday"
>>
>> kinda thing.
>>
>> Don't discount things people say as lies just because YOU can't find
>> any documentary evidence on the internet. It isn't all seeing and all
>> knowing.
> And here you just backed yourself into a corner. Nothing (N-O-T-H-I-N-G)
> Rex claims about his disputed "accomplishments" can be substantiated online,
> even though many of his claims are about online and computer technology.
So? still nothing proven, just trollish conjecture.
> The real people and situations and history and technologies are exhaustively
> documented online and elsewhere, in hundreds of sources, but Rex
> Ballard - creator of all these technologies - somehow escaped everyone's
> mind.
Really? How very interesting. ALL people in those situations are glory
seekers, really?
>> Some of his claims ARE about having something taken and used without
>> giving him the credit. Can you disprove those?
> Rex has a ready excuse for these as well: he was behind the scenes, working
> anonymously, slipping papers and suggestions under people's doors, standing
> over their shoulders and coaching them, etc... LOL! (he actually said
> those things)
And?
>> Any more than you can disprove that I worked in a small company in
>> london and installed systems destined for NASA or British Telecom?
> That can easily be proven or disproven if you give us the name of the
> company.
No longer trading, good luck.
> Most of Rex's lies can be proven by a complete lack of evidence
> for his claim, or by the existence of mounds of opposing evidence.
Lack of evidence does not equal proof. Any more than circumstantial evidence
leads to proof.
You have
> to be an utter fool to actually believe his claim [paraphrasing] "Sun
> reworked my Dow Data Protocol code a bit and released it as Java." Are you
> an utter fool?
I've never read his pages, quite frankly, I'm not interested one way or the
other, I'm just arguing against your character assasination.
--
______________________________________________________________________________
DFS
> DFS <nospam@dfs_.com> did eloquently scribble:
>>> It's also quite possible to work amongst a group and not be noticed,
>>> to not be forceful or loudmouthed and thus forgotten. These people
>>> do a HECK of a lot of the work that other people then take the
>>> credit for, he might not have been one of the bosses, but one of the
>>> "underlings" the bosses took the credit from.
>>>
>>> Quite common practice.
>
>> I see he reeled you in hook-line-sinker. How gullible can you be?
>
> Like I'd believe anything you said.
> Besides, I'm not saying I believe him, or don't believe him.
Then what are we talking about here?
> I'm just making the point that it is quite possible to achieve a lot
> in your career without leaving much of a mark that points back to you.
I'm beginning to understand. You're just like Rex: you're personally
responsible for the Apollo 13 mission, because an app you wrote as a child
was used at NASA.
Right?
>>> "Oh, ballard... Write up a spec for a secure http, I expect it on my
>>> desk by friday"
>>>
>>> kinda thing.
>>>
>>> Don't discount things people say as lies just because YOU can't find
>>> any documentary evidence on the internet. It isn't all seeing and
>>> all knowing.
>
>> And here you just backed yourself into a corner. Nothing
>> (N-O-T-H-I-N-G) Rex claims about his disputed "accomplishments" can
>> be substantiated online, even though many of his claims are about
>> online and computer technology.
>
> So? still nothing proven, just trollish conjecture.
If Sun Microsystems credits Bill Joy and James Gosling with Java (and they
do), and say it was written internally by them (which they do), and make no
mention of Rex Ballard (and they don't), then Rex Ballard's "Dow Data
Protocol" was not the source/inspiration for Java (and it isn't), as Rex
claims. Why do you have such a hard time understanding that?
Rex claims he personally is responsible for adding $1 million per day new
operating revenue to FedEx, and $1 million per day in cost savings. The net
gain to FedEx would be somewhere north of $700 million annually, and he
claims to have done it within a few months of starting work there. But
curiously, FedEx seems to have overlooked this ENORMOUS windfall gift and
this extremely talented employee, and instead fired Rex or otherwise forced
him out.
>> The real people and situations and history and technologies are
>> exhaustively documented online and elsewhere, in hundreds of
>> sources, but Rex
>> Ballard - creator of all these technologies - somehow escaped
>> everyone's mind.
>
> Really? How very interesting. ALL people in those situations are glory
> seekers, really?
Who said anything like that? The actual inventors and developers and
situations and technologies are exhaustively documented online - but why is
there no mention (not a single one) of Rex Ballard?
>>> Some of his claims ARE about having something taken and used without
>>> giving him the credit. Can you disprove those?
>
>> Rex has a ready excuse for these as well: he was behind the scenes,
>> working anonymously, slipping papers and suggestions under people's
>> doors, standing over their shoulders and coaching them, etc...
>> LOL! (he actually said those things)
>
> And?
Did you ever get an anonymous piece of paper under your door? Maybe Rex is
responsible for all your work and creations, too.
>>> Any more than you can disprove that I worked in a small company in
>>> london and installed systems destined for NASA or British Telecom?
>
>> That can easily be proven or disproven if you give us the name of the
>> company.
>
> No longer trading, good luck.
What was the name of the company?
>> Most of Rex's lies can be proven by a complete lack of evidence
>> for his claim, or by the existence of mounds of opposing evidence.
>
> Lack of evidence does not equal proof.
Uh huh.
spike1: "There's mounds of evidence that Bill Joy and James Gosling wrote
Java while employed at Sun. There's no evidence whatsoever they based it on
Rex's Dow Data Protocol. Rex said Java was based on his work. Therefore
Rex wrote Java."
> Any more than circumstantial evidence leads to proof.
Circumstantial evidence doesn't enter into it. There is ZERO proof of
anything Rex claims (that I'm disputing).
> You have
>> to be an utter fool to actually believe his claim [paraphrasing] "Sun
>> reworked my Dow Data Protocol code a bit and released it as Java."
>> Are you an utter fool?
>
> I've never read his pages, quite frankly, I'm not interested one way
> or the other,
You're just not interested in proving how silly you are for believing and
defending someone like Rex Ballard.
> I'm just arguing against your character assasination.
How can I assassinate the character of someone who has no character? Who
tries to take credit for the incredible work of others, who says he is
personally responsible for creating Netscape/web browsing in a few months,
who says his work-for-hire led to Java and Linux, etc etc?
spi...@freenet.co.uk
>> Besides, I'm not saying I believe him, or don't believe him.
> Then what are we talking about here?
>> I'm just making the point that it is quite possible to achieve a lot
>> in your career without leaving much of a mark that points back to you.
> I'm beginning to understand. You're just like Rex: you're personally
> responsible for the Apollo 13 mission, because an app you wrote as a child
> was used at NASA.
Yes, I wrote a lot of high accuracy lunar trajectory calculation programs
when I was 3.
Now who's delusional?
> Right?
Wrong.
>> No longer trading, good luck.
> What was the name of the company?
Mind your own business.
I was merely using it as an example.
--
| |What to do if you find yourself stuck in a crack|
| spi...@freenet.co.uk |in the ground beneath a giant boulder, which you|
| |can't move, with no hope of rescue. |
|Andrew Halliwell BSc(hons)|Consider how lucky you are that life has been |
| in |good to you so far... |
| Computer Science | -The BOOK, Hitch-hiker's guide to the galaxy.|
Tim Smith
wrote:
>> to be an utter fool to actually believe his claim [paraphrasing] "Sun
>> reworked my Dow Data Protocol code a bit and released it as Java." Are
>> you an utter fool?
>
> I've never read his pages, quite frankly, I'm not interested one way or
> the other, I'm just arguing against your character assasination.
If you've never read those pages, you have no basis for judging whether it is
character assasination.
--
--Tim Smith
spi...@freenet.co.uk
Even if I had, I'd have no basis for assasination anyway. What happens on
the web, even if someone posts a complete flight of fancy, it has nothing to
do with their conduct here.
I don't go around attacking people on usenet for things I think it's likely
they may possibly have done or not done in real life with nothing but a
suspicious mind and a "yeah, like you did all that, REALLY" attitude.
Only what he posts (or links to) here is of import to linux advocacy.
--
______________________________________________________________________________
| spi...@freenet.co.uk | "Are you pondering what I'm pondering Pinky?" |
|Andrew Halliwell BSc(hons)| |
| in | "I think so brain, but this time, you control |
| Computer Science | the Encounter suit, and I'll do the voice..." |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Erik Funkenbusch
> Only what he posts (or links to) here is of import to linux advocacy.
In case you weren't aware, he's posted pretty much everything he's said
there on this newsgroup at various times.
example:
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.unix.advocacy/msg/971aaf27c5770f3a
"Several, thousands in fact. I've been helping publishers get
on the Internet/Web since 1992. I helped design the earliest
web browsers and I wrote the specifications (complete with
pseudocode) for SSL, SHTTP, and Cookies, because this is
what publishers needed to manage real markets in a real
world. I contributed these to NCSA for Mosaic. Later I gave
Marc Andreeson permission to use them in Netscape (which at that
time wasn't even a company, just an application by that name)."
also:
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/713d50a2a7ce0632
"I had written the specifications to 5 major enhancements which
were critical to e-commerce. This included specifications for
SHTTP, SSL, Cookies, and htaccess, along with the original
specifications for the earliest web browser (Viola). I put
them on the internet. In several cases, I even published them
under the terms of the GNU general public license."
Rex Ballard
> spi...@freenet.co.uk wrote:
> > Yes?
> > And?
> > Did you have a point Doofus?
> A smart guy like you should be able to figure it out.
Yes. According to DFS and certain other WinTrolls, anything that can't
looked up in Google, and happened before they were born - didn't
happen.
Never mind hat there were fewer than 1000 servers on usenet back in
early 1984, that it was mostly used by admins, that the "social groups"
like net.legal weren't archived because the tapes were too expensive.
He also can't believe that any one of the over 100 contributors might
have not been mentioned because the only identity was
rexb!ccivax!ritvax (note, not even a proper NNTP identity).
Keep in mind that even when we did give our identities, we had to be
very careful to protect our employers, not to divulge confidential
information, and not to make disclaimers, our company unix
administrator also advised against using our real names and company
information.
I supposed you could try going back to Rochester New York and see if
you can find my library card records, to see how many books on
copyright law I checked out - I doubt they keep records for 25 years.
I suppose you wouldn't be able to find the credit cards showing how
many books on copyright law I purchased either. Computer Consoles is
now Nortel Directory Services, it's still located at 97 Humbolt street,
and they *might* have records of what I borrowed from the company
library.
I have a personal archive of my usenet and e-mail postings on 6250 BPI
Reel-to-Reel tape in UNIX Tar format from a VAX 11/750 that I made in
late 1987. I also backed this up to a QIC 150 Sun cartridge in 1990.
I still have them, I don't even know if they are recoverable. One
company offered to try to put the contents on CD-ROM for $250. Think I
should do it? Any companies in the New Jersey/NYC area that can do
this?
If you look through the postings that DID make it into the Google
archives back in 1984, you will see that I had posted to usenet, that I
did have at least ONE public usenet discussion with Richard Stallman
(it survives because it was cross-posted to a unix admin group, which
was included in the archive obtained by Google.
In this usenet discussion, I raised an issue with the way BISON claimed
copyright over the generated source code, even though the input source
code was corporate owned.
The outcome was that the author of YACC released it under a BSD license
that was not tied to AT&T copyrights.
I don't know if Richard Stallman or the FSF members have archives that
go back that far. FSF hadn't even been formed yet. It might be in
some old emacs archives.
There are those who would tell you that the Houlocaust never happened,
because THEY didn't see the camps, or they minimize the damage. DFS
makes the same argument.
If I can't prove it, it didn't happen.
If I had thought it was as important as it turned out to be, maybe my
company's lawyers would have been a bit less reluctant to let us post
to usenet.
Consider this. I've been posting to public archives for 23, I've
posted an average of 5 articles per day, covering issues ranging from
women's issues and politics (mostly in the 1980s) to COLA Each posting
averaged 4 pages of typewritten text. Let's do the math
5 pages * 5 artcles * 5 days/week * 50 weeks * 23 years - That's
143,750 pages of published work. And how many of those pages have you
actually read?
Keep in mind that this does NOT include work done for hire (probably
another 150,000 pages), including e-mails, status reports, design
documents, project plans, and memos.
And did you also want to talk about my daily phone log?
Or the 4-5 public speaking engagements per week?
In most, I am deliberatly anonymous.
I have also worked an average of 60 hours/week for that period, not
including posting and other community service, about 69,000 hours,
about 34 staff-years. And 13,000 hours of voluntary community service.
But DFS and Erik will call me a liar and a fool, because I'm not
willing to take the tme and effort to prove every statement I make.
DFS
> DFS wrote:
>> spi...@freenet.co.uk wrote:
>>> Yes?
>>> And?
>>> Did you have a point Doofus?
>> A smart guy like you should be able to figure it out.
>
> Yes. According to DFS and certain other WinTrolls, anything that
> can't looked up in Google, and happened before they were born - didn't
> happen.
Not only can't your claims be looked up in Google, they can't be looked up
ANYWHERE.
(when I say 'your claims', I mean only those I've disputed here on cola).
For instance, you claimed to have written the specifications for shttp.
When? Why? Where are they on the Internet? Where were they published?
Why are the shttp specs found on the Internet attributed to other people?
Did they steal your work?
> Never mind hat there were fewer than 1000 servers on usenet back in
> early 1984, that it was mostly used by admins, that the "social
> groups" like net.legal weren't archived because the tapes were too
> expensive.
>
> He also can't believe that any one of the over 100 contributors might
> have not been mentioned because the only identity was
> rexb!ccivax!ritvax (note, not even a proper NNTP identity).
I don't deny that you participated in net.legal discussions; I do deny that
you wrote a single syllable of the first GPL.
> If you look through the postings that DID make it into the Google
> archives back in 1984, you will see that I had posted to usenet, that
> I did have at least ONE public usenet discussion with Richard Stallman
> (it survives because it was cross-posted to a unix admin group, which
> was included in the archive obtained by Google.
>
> In this usenet discussion, I raised an issue with the way BISON
> claimed copyright over the generated source code, even though the
> input source code was corporate owned.
From Google: Your search - BISON Ballard - did not match any documents.
(Jan 1 1981 through Dec 31 1984, for all words)
> The outcome was that the author of YACC released it under a BSD
> license that was not tied to AT&T copyrights.
The outcome of what?
Here's where the bullshit and fantasy-land starts. According to you, every
time you post you directly influence everyone else on that newsgroup or
mailing list (whether they read your posts or not), and all their work and
their decision-making afterwards is attributable to you. It's absurd beyond
belief; it's unsupportable, unjustifiable, pathological megalomania.
Prove me wrong here: get the author of YACC to confirm on cola that he
released YACC under a BSD license only because you raised that issue in a
Usenet post. Do that and I'll gladly apologize (for this one issue). I'll
be waiting.
> There are those who would tell you that the Houlocaust never happened,
> because THEY didn't see the camps, or they minimize the damage. DFS
> makes the same argument.
To extend the analogy: show me the camps. You make all kinds of outrageous
claims, but there's no evidence whatsoever that they're true.
> If I can't prove it, it didn't happen.
How can you prove something that can't be proven?
You claimed Sun reworked your Dow Data Protocol code "a bit" and released it
as Java. The only way you can "prove" this is to get James Gosling himself
to lie for you, which would in turn ruin his and Sun's reputation and reveal
they perpetrated a fraud on the world for 10 years. So, is that what really
happened? I think not.
> 5 pages * 5 artcles * 5 days/week * 50 weeks * 23 years - That's
> 143,750 pages of published work. And how many of those pages have you
> actually read?
Too many.
> Or the 4-5 public speaking engagements per week?
AA?
NA?
OA?
SAA?
All 4?
> In most, I am deliberatly anonymous.
How does that work: endlessly tooting your own horn, anonymously?
> But DFS and Erik will call me a liar and a fool, because I'm not
> willing to take the tme and effort to prove every statement I make.
You're not a fool. You're a huge liar, you try to take credit for others'
work, and you greatly overestimate the impact of your Usenet and mailing
list posts. Why is a matter for you and a psychologist.
You're also exceptionally intelligent. The inode discussion you posted (in
response to my query about updating running Linux apps/.dlls) was lucid and
knowledgeable, and it sounded like you wrote it without consulting a
reference. Given what you appear to know about computing and technology,
I'm kind of surprised you haven't written some innovative Linux apps, or a
filesystem, or virtual machine, etc.
Rex Ballard
> Rex Ballard wrote:
> > Yes. According to DFS and certain other WinTrolls, anything that
> > can't looked up in Google, and happened before they were born - didn't
> > happen.
>
> Not only can't your claims be looked up in Google, they can't be looked up
> ANYWHERE.
> > He also can't believe that any one of the over 100 contributors might
> > have not been mentioned because the only identity was
> > rexb!ccivax!ritvax (note, not even a proper NNTP identity).
>
> I don't deny that you participated in net.legal discussions; I do deny that
> you wrote a single syllable of the first GPL.
But how would you know? Have you a detailed record of these
discussions?
> From Google: Your search - BISON Ballard - did not match any documents.
try rb ccivax bison
and rb@cci632 and rb@ccivax
Remember, CCI was one of the first corporate hosts on the
usenet/internet.
Back in September of 1983
2 letter IDs for a company of 150 employees was more than enough.
Erik Funkenbusch
> But how would you know? Have you a detailed record of these
> discussions?
Oh, knock of the philisophical "how many angels on the head of a pin"
bullshit. You didn't do most of the things you claim, and you know it.
The fact that you cannot prove any of your claims is all the proof
necessary that you are full of shit.
I or DFS or anyone else do not need "detailed records" of the time, *YOU*
DO.
Jim
could someone like, get a name or two off of the credits list for the
GPL, get in touch with them and get them here to confirm or refute Rex's
claims and put this bullshit thread to bed? Or do you guys like, want to
just go get a room and juke it out and let everyone else get on with
some advocacy?
--
When all else fails...
Use a hammer.
Some people are like Slinkies
They serve no particular purpose
But they bring a smile to your face
When you push them down the stairs.
Sinister Midget
> There are those who would tell you that the Houlocaust never happened,
> because THEY didn't see the camps, or they minimize the damage. DFS
> makes the same argument.
> If I can't prove it, it didn't happen.
The bigot, DooFu$, would be one of those to tell you that. And he
would be able to produce "evidence" which "proves" it, something
presumably gathered from one of his Klan meetings.
> But DFS and Erik will call me a liar and a fool, because I'm not
> willing to take the tme and effort to prove every statement I make.
Just look at those names. I ask you, should _anybody_ be bothered by an
opinion from either of those people?
--
Those are my principles. If you don't like them I have others.
-- Groucho Marx
Rex Ballard
Why? Am I making a legal claim?
Perhaps my former employers might care, but I gave generously of time
and talent
asking nothing other than that those profit from OSS make
contributions amounting to
1/10th of one percent to OSS projects and organizations.
It appears that this modest request has been honored by many
organizations.
DFS
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>> On 25 Jun 2006 00:19:09 -0700, Rex Ballard wrote:
>>
>>> But how would you know? Have you a detailed record of these
>>> discussions?
>
>> Oh, knock of the philisophical "how many angels on the head of a pin"
>> bullshit. You didn't do most of the things you claim, and you know
>> it. The fact that you cannot prove any of your claims is all the
>> proof necessary that you are full of shit.
>
>> I or DFS or anyone else do not need "detailed records" of the time,
>> *YOU* DO.
>
> Why? Am I making a legal claim?
Hopefully someone from one of these organizations or people you're trying to
take credit from will force you, at the blunt end of a subpoena, to submit
proof of your claims. But I won't hold my breath; Usenet kooks like you
aren't worth the trouble and cost.
> Perhaps my former employers might care, but I gave generously of time
> and talent
> asking nothing other than that those profit from OSS make
> contributions amounting to
> 1/10th of one percent to OSS projects and organizations.
>
> It appears that this modest request has been honored by many
> organizations.
There you go again, making a ridiculous, imagined link between your online
posting and real-world actions by people and organizations.
Do you have any evidence that any organization contributed .001 of anything
to OSS projects because you requested they do so? Of course you don't. Yet
you think just saying something online means it automatically happens in the
real world.
Given ZERO evidence, why do you continue to think you're so important?
What makes you think your online postings have ever generated anything in
the world of technology but laughter and ridicule?
Well?
Rex Ballard
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> > On 25 Jun 2006 00:19:09 -0700, Rex Ballard wrote:
> >>But how would you know? Have you a detailed record of these
> >>discussions?
> >
> > *YOU* DO.
Can you give me verifiable proof of anything you did 20+ years ago?
What makes you think that I would drag every document I've ever
written, in printed form, around for 23 years? I'm lucking to have the
tapes, and I don't even know if they are readable.
> could someone like, get a name or two off of the credits list for the
> GPL, get in touch with them and get them here to confirm or refute Rex's
> claims and put this bullshit thread to bed? Or do you guys like, want to
> just go get a room and juke it out and let everyone else get on with
> some advocacy?
Well, you see, the problem is that I'm a very strong and articulate
Linux and OSS advocate who has been able to consistently maintain a
series of pretty strong enrollment argument in behalf of Linux, and
OSS.
If you look through the writings I HAVE written, that are publicly
available, it's pretty easy to see that I can be an effective
pursuasive writer.
DFS and Erik, who are very loyal to Microsoft, for whatever reasons,
feel it's their duty to try to discredit me by attempting to exaggerate
my "stranger than life" claims.
I claim to be a participant in a number of conversations, often on the
bleeding edge of modern technology, and often leading in the
commercialization of this technology, and they make it look like I
claimed to be "sole author".
I have stated that I have written nearly 200,000 pages, including
documentation, proposals, usenet postings, mailing list discussions,
and other documentation, along with telephone calls and public
speaking, including "shares" with 12 step programs, Landmark Education,
and numerous sessions with clients, customers, and coworkers.
25 years, nearly 80,000 hours in the IT Industry.
But it's appearantly inconceivable that I could POSSIBLY have had
ANYTHING to do with the Internet (even though my employer was one of
the first corporate hosts), with remote procedure calls, with remote
method invocation (NOT the Java Language, just contributions toward RMI
and "transmission mode SGML" aka XML).
I provided some concepts, and my teams generated some useful code, but
there were numerous people involved - possibly as many as 3-4 degrees
of separation.
DFS and Erik publish an article claiming that I personally invented one
or more of these things "all by myself", which I have never claimed.
On the other hand, I think it's within the realm of possibility, even
probability, that, given the circles in which I operated, that I might
have been one of one hundred or so contributors to a number of
technologies now in use today.
I have been using UNIX since 1983, Linux since 1993, Usenet since 1984,
and worked for Dow Jones from 1993 to 1995, when it became the first
nationally branded publisher on what is now known as the "World Wide
Web".
What is remarkable is that, given this easily verified history, that
these two still find it absolutely impossible that I could have made
ANY personal contribution.
Keep in mind that there was a cost. I had to relocate a few times. My
marriage ended when my wife decided to marry her lover, and I didn't
get to see my kids nearly as much as I wanted to.
On the flip side, living a rather spartan life left me with a great
deal of time and energy and resources to focus my efforts on making a
difference in the lives of millions of people. My spiritual
upbringing, along with a strong background in 12 step programs made it
much less important for me to "blow my own horn".
It really isn't about me. Even today, most of these silly discussions
are merely responses to personal attacks on my credibility. The intent
being to attempt to discredit a key advocate - therefore discrediting
Linux and OSS itself.
In 20/20 hindsight, there are many times when I was not effective - I
was sure that the Atari ST would blow away the PC. I hadn't counted on
the MS-DOS OEMs to flood the RFI testing labs with configurations which
caused Atari to miss it's market window.
I also thought that Linux would be at least equal to Windows by now,
but I underestimated Microsoft's capability to create imaginitative
contracts.
Read for yourself
http://www.open4success.org/bio
DFS
> Jim wrote:
>> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>>> On 25 Jun 2006 00:19:09 -0700, Rex Ballard wrote:
>>>> But how would you know? Have you a detailed record of these
>>>> discussions?
>>>
>>> I or DFS or anyone else do not need "detailed records" of the time,
>>> *YOU* DO.
>
> Can you give me verifiable proof of anything you did 20+ years ago?
> What makes you think that I would drag every document I've ever
> written, in printed form, around for 23 years? I'm lucking to have
> the tapes, and I don't even know if they are readable.
>
>> could someone like, get a name or two off of the credits list for the
>> GPL, get in touch with them and get them here to confirm or refute
>> Rex's claims and put this bullshit thread to bed? Or do you guys
>> like, want to just go get a room and juke it out and let everyone
>> else get on with some advocacy?
>
> Well, you see, the problem is that I'm a very strong and articulate
> Linux and OSS advocate who has been able to consistently maintain a
> series of pretty strong enrollment argument in behalf of Linux, and
> OSS.
What does that mean? What's an enrollment argument?
And what website or app or corporation or patent has your name in the
credits list?
> If you look through the writings I HAVE written, that are publicly
> available, it's pretty easy to see that I can be an effective
> pursuasive writer.
Only in *your* mind do your writings persuade others to create new
technologies, which you later try to claim credit for. It doesn't work like
that in real life.
> DFS and Erik, who are very loyal to Microsoft, for whatever reasons,
> feel it's their duty to try to discredit me by attempting to
> exaggerate my "stranger than life" claims.
Your claims are already exaggerated enough.
> I claim to be a participant in a number of conversations, often on the
> bleeding edge of modern technology, and often leading in the
> commercialization of this technology, and they make it look like I
> claimed to be "sole author".
Which you often do, of course.
"Video Salesman - creating a new industry."
"Computer Salesman - Creating another new industry."
"My Hobby - creating $1 Billion industries"
Most laughable is "It was then that my aviation club teacher showed me a
film of some "toys" which the military had developed out of notes taken from
my locker" (ROFL!)
> I have stated that I have written nearly 200,000 pages, including
> documentation, proposals, usenet postings, mailing list discussions,
> and other documentation, along with telephone calls and public
> speaking, including "shares" with 12 step programs, Landmark
> Education, and numerous sessions with clients, customers, and
> coworkers.
And?
> 25 years, nearly 80,000 hours in the IT Industry.
> But it's appearantly inconceivable that I could POSSIBLY have had
> ANYTHING to do with the Internet (even though my employer was one of
> the first corporate hosts), with remote procedure calls, with remote
> method invocation (NOT the Java Language, just contributions toward
> RMI and "transmission mode SGML" aka XML).
OK. So where are your contributions documented? We've asked you dozens of
times, but you can't come up with any 3rd party record of your involvement.
> I provided some concepts, and my teams generated some useful code, but
> there were numerous people involved - possibly as many as 3-4 degrees
> of separation.
>
> DFS and Erik publish an article claiming that I personally invented
> one or more of these things "all by myself", which I have never
> claimed.
"In a matter of six months, I had generated a 4 billion dollar industry."
http://www.open4success.org/bio/Auto07.html
> On the other hand, I think it's within the realm of possibility, even
> probability, that, given the circles in which I operated, that I might
> have been one of one hundred or so contributors to a number of
> technologies now in use today.
"might have been" is the very strongest statement you can make, and even
that is stretching it. But you don't use that wording: you say "my work led
to so and so", "the outcome of my Usenet discussion was thus and such", "I
helped draft the GPL", "I generated the web browsing industry", "I saved
FedEx $1 million per day", on and on and on.
> I have been using UNIX since 1983, Linux since 1993, Usenet since
> 1984, and worked for Dow Jones from 1993 to 1995, when it became the
> first nationally branded publisher on what is now known as the "World
> Wide Web".
Great. There's a huge leap between these things and what you claim.
> What is remarkable is that, given this easily verified history, that
> these two still find it absolutely impossible that I could have made
> ANY personal contribution.
All the real inventors and developers and histories are well-documented.
Your contributions are not documented in any way, whatsoever. Why?
> On the flip side, living a rather spartan life left me with a great
> deal of time and energy and resources to focus my efforts on making a
> difference in the lives of millions of people. My spiritual
> upbringing, along with a strong background in 12 step programs made it
> much less important for me to "blow my own horn".
Still playing the coy routine, year after year...
> It really isn't about me.
But as much as ever, you want it to be. Your "biography" is a long list of
blowhard claims that you can't get anybody involved to support.
For instance, you said: "I enjoy helping people create new wompanies and
watching their stock price go from $3/share to $30." So, what company did
you help create and watch their shares jump tenfold?
> Even today, most of these silly discussions
> are merely responses to personal attacks on my credibility.
You have no credibility.
> The intent being to attempt to discredit a key advocate - therefore
> discrediting Linux and OSS itself.
Two sentences ago it wasn't about you; suddenly you're a "key advocate"?
LOL!
> Read for yourself
> http://www.open4success.org/bio
It's full of lies and you trying to claim credit for a whole host of
technologies which you didn't create, and didn't contribute to. I think you
wrote it during one of your manic phases.
Erik Funkenbusch
>>> I or DFS or anyone else do not need "detailed records" of the time,
>>> *YOU* DO.
>
> Can you give me verifiable proof of anything you did 20+ years ago?
Yes, I can. But i'm not going to, because i'm not trumpeting my
achievements and laying claim to the very foundations of the entire
internet.
You are. Spectacular claims require Spectacular proof.
> What makes you think that I would drag every document I've ever
> written, in printed form, around for 23 years? I'm lucking to have the
> tapes, and I don't even know if they are readable.
You seem to do a pretty good job of documenting *EVERYTHING* else you've
ever done on your web site.
> Well, you see, the problem is that I'm a very strong and articulate
> Linux and OSS advocate who has been able to consistently maintain a
> series of pretty strong enrollment argument in behalf of Linux, and
> OSS.
No, the problem is that you're a bald faced liar with delusions of
grandeur. If you kept to the truth, I wouldn't have to constantly point
out your "mistakes", which you often acknowledge and then continue to
repeat.
> If you look through the writings I HAVE written, that are publicly
> available, it's pretty easy to see that I can be an effective
> pursuasive writer.
Yes, you sound good. Until someone checks your facts.
> DFS and Erik, who are very loyal to Microsoft, for whatever reasons,
> feel it's their duty to try to discredit me by attempting to exaggerate
> my "stranger than life" claims.
You're the one doing the exaggeration here.
> I claim to be a participant in a number of conversations, often on the
> bleeding edge of modern technology, and often leading in the
> commercialization of this technology, and they make it look like I
> claimed to be "sole author".
You claimed you were the sole author of many things, including SHTTP,
Cookies, etc.. And that you "posted them to the internet" and they were
taken and had the serial numbers filed off.
> On the other hand, I think it's within the realm of possibility, even
> probability, that, given the circles in which I operated, that I might
> have been one of one hundred or so contributors to a number of
> technologies now in use today.
And you might have been captured by aliens and subjected to mental
"enhancement" too. Cut the crap of what you "might have" done. Prove it,
or retract your statements.
> What is remarkable is that, given this easily verified history, that
> these two still find it absolutely impossible that I could have made
> ANY personal contribution.
Nobody ever said it was impossible for you to have done some kind of
contribution, but we do claim that it's impossible for you to have done
everything you have claimed you've done, and *ALWAYS* had credit taken by
others and every trace of your participation scrubbed from the anals of
history.
> It really isn't about me.
Then stop trumpeting your alleged "achievements".
> I also thought that Linux would be at least equal to Windows by now,
> but I underestimated Microsoft's capability to create imaginitative
> contracts.
Of course you understand this, since you're so good at creating imaginitive
stories about yourself.
Tony Sinclair
That Rex dude is some piece of work. What a freaking flake. Funny how
he smart enough to develope the internet and java but can't even figure
out how to use a spell checker.
Now I don't give people crap for not spelling usenet posts right. But
this is supposed to be his bio on his web site. So you figure he at
least would be able to spell things right. The very top of the page.
"Creating Billion dollaar Industries"
What the flock is a dollaar? I took just a simple look at his bio and I
see crap like bottelnecks, personell, hobbiests, senssitive,
occaisions, Manager of Arcitecture, 20 millien customers, OSHA
Nightmere.
Not only is this guy a complete liar and lunatic. He's to stupid to
even use a spell checker for the bio on his web site.
Rex Ballard
Tony Sinclair wrote:
> > http://www.open4success.org/bio/Auto07.html
\>
> That Rex dude is some piece of work. What a freaking flake. Funny how
> he smart enough to develope the internet and java but can't even figure
> out how to use a spell checker.
>
those chapters, originally as "Inventories", inspired by a course I had
taken at Landmark. Several of these chapters were written in the wee
hours of the morning, in "vi", because I wanted to control the HTML
formatting myself.
It really is amazing that I have left these spelling errors and some of
the other issues out there for all this time. Thank you for bringing
this to my attention. I have gone through these web-pages with ispell
to fix most of the spelling errors.
Thanks again for bringing this to my attention.
Sinister Midget
"Tony" needs to check the mirror. S/H/It must've had s/h/itself in mind
with that post.
--
It's not that I'm afraid to die. I just don't want to be there
when it happens.
-- Woody Allen
Da'Punk-A
Tony Sinclair wrote:
> That Rex dude is some piece of work. What a freaking flake. Funny how
> he smart enough to develope the internet and java but can't even figure
> out how to use a spell checker.
>
> Now I don't give people crap for not spelling usenet posts right. But
> this is supposed to be his bio on his web site. So you figure he at
> least would be able to spell things right. The very top of the page.
>
> "Creating Billion dollaar Industries"
>
> What the flock is a dollaar? I took just a simple look at his bio and I
> see crap like bottelnecks, personell, hobbiests, senssitive,
> occaisions, Manager of Arcitecture, 20 millien customers, OSHA
> Nightmere.
>
> Not only is this guy a complete liar and lunatic. He's to stupid to
> even use a spell checker for the bio on his web site.
Maybe spell checkers are better nowadays. But when I first used a word
processing program (Word, on Windows 3.1, God have mercy), the spell
checker was more of a PITA than its usefulness warranted. My
spelling's okay, generally when I'm using a keyboard my errors will be
typos rather than actual spelling mistakes. So that's what I was using
the spell checker for - basically to check for typos. But it would
pull me up on so much other crap, names, alternate spellings, words
that weren't in its dictionary, it was annoying and I dumped the thing.
Anyway, a spell checker is an /aid/, but not a proper replacement for
good old fashioned proof reading. If you depend on a computer program
for this, you're the one who's being stupid.
Rex Ballard
> Rex Ballard wrote:
>
> Hopefully someone from one of these organizations or people you're trying to
> take credit from will force you, at the blunt end of a subpoena, to submit
> proof of your claims. But I won't hold my breath; Usenet kooks like you
> aren't worth the trouble and cost.
What I have said, and still say, is that I PARTICIPATED in DISCUSSIONS
related
to these technologies. GPL, Commercialization of the Internet,
Commercialization of Linux, Commercialization of Open Source. Bringing
these technologies to businesses, publishers, and consumers.
Dow Data Protocol came in two flavors, one was based on ASN 1, later
CORBA IIOP, the other was SGML ind "feed format". This was in 1994.
Very shortly after the release of Java, and members of my team
implemented parsers and writers in Java.
As early as 1985, I was suggesting that the ultimate programming
language would be a combination of FORTH, Smalltalk and C. I think
that's a pretty good descrption of Java.
> > Perhaps my former employers might care, but I gave generously of time
> > and talent asking nothing other than that those profit from OSS make
> > contributions amounting to 1/10th of one percent to OSS projects and organizations.
> >
> > It appears that this modest request has been honored by many
> > organizations.
Let me add :D
> There you go again, making a ridiculous, imagined link between your online
> posting and real-world actions by people and organizations.
In the Online-newspapers and Online-news mailing lists, after writing
hundreds of "nuts and bolts" articles, I jokingly requested that
instead of paying me royalties, that the member publishers contribute
to OSS projects. I followed this joking remark by pointing out that
they were reaping the benefits of OSS, which enabled many early
publishers to start publishing on the internet with shoestring budgets.
I did not think it was unreasonable for them to pay 1/10th of 1
percent of their profits to organization that supported GNU, PERL,
Apache, Mosaic, and Linux.
Whether my postings had anything to do with it or not, I do not know,
but many companies did start making contributions of this type to these
organizations.
Within about a week of making the request, someone in the group pointed
out that Red Hat had announced that they were going to contribute 50
cents to FSF for every copy of Linux sold to paying customers (price at
the time was about $50 I think).
Many companies contribute as much as 1% of their profits to OSS
organizations.
Yes, it could have been coincidence. Or it could have been that the
8,000 readers, all of whom worked for publishers, consulting firms with
publishers as clients, or early web sites, may have thought that it was
a reasonable request, passed it up to someone else, who passed it up
the management chain, who finally implemented it in terms of actual
budgets and expendatures.
Have you ever written a proposal, and had your boss remove your name
and place his in place of yours? I have had this happen numerous
times, especially when I was a Junior Progammer. We both understood
that my name would carry very little clout. His name on the same
document would assure that it got read by the top level executives. I
very quickly came to even seek out managers who would put their names
on my proposals.
Even today, if I have a reccommendation, I will make sure that I get
"sign in" from higher level executives and distinguished engineers. I
know that the can muster resources necessary to turn a "good idea" into
reality. I might spend 3-6 months working on intial implementations,
which might just be a side-bar on a project. But before the project is
completed, the principles and practices are captured by the team, and
these "side effects" are turned into commercial grade implementations
by people who have the time, resources, inclination, patience, and
clout to "polish them up".
Most of my creative efforts are focused on solving specific problems
for specific clients in a cost-effective manner. Most of the projects
are the kinds of things that can't be solved with traditional thinking
and solutions alone. There are very tight time and budget constraints,
and I might crank out a very rough solution in a few weeks, that meets
the needs of that client at that time. THEN we start looking at
preserving the records, often very "rough", some sparse documentation,
some chats, some memos, and some quick and dirty "slide shows" (I used
to take notes in Powerpoint, new I use Presents).
Those can go to organizations who are willing to spend months and
dollars dressing it up, fleshing it out, and then implementing them as
new features to other offerings.
Do you have any idea how many IBM products and features come from IGS
engagements?
> Given ZERO evidence, why do you continue to think you're so important?
I have never been terribly "important". I do the best I can to be of
maximum service to as many people as I can. I look for solutions that
work, work with organizations that can implement those solutions, and
once the problem is solved, and they are comfortable "taking it over",
I move on to the next opportunity. When a solution is a "done deal", I
let others more qualified take it on.
I love looking for the projects that are "impossible". Those are the
ones that force me to think "outside the box". At the same time,
working on a project like that gives me the resources to do a "quick
and dirty" implementation instead of just "having a great idea".
I find the patent application process extremely frustrating. I can
come up with a good idea, and even a working implementation, but it can
take months of research to catalogue all of the prior art, and after
all that time and effort, they can decide to "do nothing", which
usually means just keeping the records and using NDAs.
I'm usually teamed up with someone who is really good at handling all
of that beaurocracy, which at least assures that the solution will be
captured and recorded.
> What makes you think your online postings have ever generated anything in
> the world of technology but laughter and ridicule?
I don't doubt I've caused quite a bit of laughter. Sometimes on
purpose.
You should have heard what a joke I was when I told everone that the
Internet was the future of IT. They were holding stock in Novell,
Compuserve, and Prodigy.
They would refer to me in meetings as "Mister TCP/IP" or "Mister
Internet", but it wasn't intended to be a compliment. And it wasn't
always easy to accept.
Then, when the Internet grew from 2 million users to nearly 60 million
users "overnight", and the CEO was demanding that we be on the Internet
within an incredibly short period of time, they laughed again - asking
if I was "psychic" (maybe :D). How could I have known?
Maybe because I was right there, fanning the fires the whole time?
But the biggest laugh was when the managers started fighting over
control of the Internet project. I wasn't even trying for it. I like
being on the edge, turning "bleeding edge" technology into something
commercially profitable. Turning "diamonds in the rough" into
something beautiful. But the diamond cutter doesn't mount the
diamonds, or sell the rings. It would be a waste of the diamond
cutter's time and talents. Just because he cuts diamonds well, does
not mean that he can keep books, fill out paperwork, manage the
accounting, and all of the mechanics of running a huge franchise
operation.
> Well?
Just curious do YOU have any idea how extraordinary results are
accomplished?
What projects have YOU participated in?
Or are you just a critic, someone who has no interest in creating
something new and extrordinary, just destroying, humiliating, and
harassing those who do try?
In the "Theater of Life", I'm the "stage manager" (not the producer),
you'll never see me and will never remember my name, but my role is
critical to the production.
You on the other hand, are the critic. Having absolutely no stake in
the production, you will write amusing little insults, left-handed
compliments, and don't even try to be responsible for your impact on
the marketability of the production.
Fortunately, the words of the critic are quickly forgotten as those who
attend the production start telling their friends, and those who are
"far less witty" generate demand for the production you trashed. Some
of the longest running shows on broadway and biggest box-office hits
were trashed by "clever critics".
DFS
> DFS wrote:
>> Rex Ballard wrote:
>>> Why? Am I making a legal claim?
>>
>> Hopefully someone from one of these organizations or people you're
>> trying to take credit from will force you, at the blunt end of a
>> subpoena, to submit proof of your claims. But I won't hold my
>> breath; Usenet kooks like you aren't worth the trouble and cost.
>
> What I have said, and still say, is that I PARTICIPATED in DISCUSSIONS
> related
> to these technologies. GPL, Commercialization of the Internet,
> Commercialization of Linux, Commercialization of Open Source.
> Bringing these technologies to businesses, publishers, and consumers.
In this thread I've asked you over and over for some kind of reasonable, 3rd
party proof of your fantastic claims. Given what you're claiming, and given
that your name is not anywhere associated with these technologies and
creations (while others are), it's not unreasonable to ask for proof.
What I get instead, over and over and over, is you obfuscating, snipping,
sidestepping, ignoring, or just spewing gibberish.
If you can't provide any proof *whatsoever* of your outlandish claims...
* created the web browsing industry in 6 months by typing online
* wrote the initial specs for shttp
* wrote or helped write what Sun based Java on
* your work "led to Java and Linux"
* generated approx $750 million operating income for FedEx within a few
months of working there
* because of you, FedEx won the Malcolm Baldridge Quality Award
* MS used your recommendations in DOS
* MS incorporated your suggestions into Windows
* you called for Linux to "take the desktop" and a year later Linus Torvalds
took up the cause.
* many organizations began contributing to the Free Software Foundation only
because you requested they do so
* you wrote some of the actual words of the first GPL.
* Martin-Marietta developed military weaponry out of handwritten notes you
made in high school, which they stole
out of your locker (ROFL!!!).
* you invented the concept of remote procedure calls.
* you saved IBM nearly $24 million (that's my estimate, based on your claim
of man-years savings you presented to IBM)
* that OEMs offering dual-boot Windows and Linux systems is your idea
...you need to quit making them, and you need to remove them from your
website.
(note: I won't hold my breath: just within this thread you've made several
more fantasy-land claims about your contributions to Linux and open source.)
> Dow Data Protocol came in two flavors, one was based on ASN 1, later
> CORBA IIOP, the other was SGML ind "feed format". This was in 1994.
> Very shortly after the release of Java, and members of my team
> implemented parsers and writers in Java.
>
> As early as 1985, I was suggesting that the ultimate programming
> language would be a combination of FORTH, Smalltalk and C. I think
> that's a pretty good descrption of Java.
And unfortunately, you truly believe James Gosling read your post somewhere
and was inspired to create Java, making you responsible for Java. Or did he
get hold of your Dow Data Protocol first? It's so hard to remember.
>>> Perhaps my former employers might care, but I gave generously of
>>> time
>>> and talent asking nothing other than that those profit from OSS
>>> make contributions amounting to 1/10th of one percent to OSS
>>> projects and organizations.
>>>
>>> It appears that this modest request has been honored by many
>>> organizations.
> Let me add :D
fwiw, I too donated to open source (buying several box-set distros, and
donated $20 to Mozilla Foundation). I would donate a lot more if I had a
good reason to use Linux/OSS.
>> There you go again, making a ridiculous, imagined link between your
>> online posting and real-world actions by people and organizations.
>
> In the Online-newspapers and Online-news mailing lists, after writing
> hundreds of "nuts and bolts" articles, I jokingly requested that
> instead of paying me royalties, that the member publishers contribute
> to OSS projects. I followed this joking remark by pointing out that
> they were reaping the benefits of OSS, which enabled many early
> publishers to start publishing on the internet with shoestring
> budgets. I did not think it was unreasonable for them to pay 1/10th
> of 1 percent of their profits to organization that supported GNU,
> PERL, Apache, Mosaic, and Linux.
>
> Whether my postings had anything to do with it or not, I do not know,
> but many companies did start making contributions of this type to
> these organizations.
"do not know" is more like it. You should say this more often, since it
represents reality.
> Within about a week of making the request, someone in the group
> pointed out that Red Hat had announced that they were going to
> contribute 50 cents to FSF for every copy of Linux sold to paying
> customers (price at the time was about $50 I think).
Well, that didn't take long. Here you are having a relapse - claiming
credit for Red Hat's contributions to the FSF. I bet there's no record of
this "request" either, huh?
I get a kick out of these leaps of faith you present. Unsupportable and
unprovable associations between what you type on the Internet and what
happens in real life are textbook symptoms of some kind of narcissistic
schizophrenia and rampant megalomania. In your world, only you have
original ideas. In your world, your Usenet posts are read and acted on by
thousands, whose actions impact thousands; you thus extrapolate your
postings as important to millions.
But only one of those millions truly idolizes you. Guess who it is?
> Many companies contribute as much as 1% of their profits to OSS
> organizations.
>
> Yes, it could have been coincidence. Or it could have been that the
> 8,000 readers, all of whom worked for publishers, consulting firms
> with publishers as clients, or early web sites, may have thought that
> it was a reasonable request, passed it up to someone else, who passed
> it up the management chain, who finally implemented it in terms of
> actual budgets and expendatures.
I'll go with coincidence - if it happened at all.
>> Given ZERO evidence, why do you continue to think you're so
>> important?
>
> I have never been terribly "important".
All postings and web biographies to the contrary...
>> What makes you think your online postings have ever generated
>> anything in the world of technology but laughter and ridicule?
>
> I don't doubt I've caused quite a bit of laughter. Sometimes on
> purpose.
Well, we're not laughing with you, Rex. I'm sure you understand that.
> You should have heard what a joke I was when I told everone that the
> Internet was the future of IT. They were holding stock in Novell,
> Compuserve, and Prodigy.
>
> They would refer to me in meetings as "Mister TCP/IP" or "Mister
> Internet", but it wasn't intended to be a compliment. And it wasn't
> always easy to accept.
They sometimes call me Tripod.
> Then, when the Internet grew from 2 million users to nearly 60 million
> users "overnight",
... must have been in the mid-90's, when tens of millions of Windows 95
users demanded and paid for 'Net access, thus driving down access costs to
affordable levels, without which few of us would be posting to cola right
now.
> and the CEO was demanding that we be on the
> Internet within an incredibly short period of time, they laughed
> again - asking if I was "psychic" (maybe :D). How could I have known?
>
> Maybe because I was right there, fanning the fires the whole time?
OK. So were tens of thousands of others. Yet they don't try to take
credit - from the actual inventors - for Netscape and Java.
>> Well?
>
> Just curious do YOU have any idea how
> extraordinary results are accomplished?
With extraordinary efforts.
> What projects have YOU participated in?
I told you before: I write business database apps - dozens of them through
the years - lately Access/VB on top of Oracle and SQL Server stores.
> Or are you just a critic, someone who has no interest in creating
> something new and extrordinary, just destroying, humiliating, and
> harassing those who do try?
If the claims you make are true, it would be impossible for me to destroy,
humiliate or harass you. Since your claims are lies, you [should] feel
destroyed, humiliated and harassed. The solution is for you to quit lying.
You need to totally revamp your website, and quit claiming credit for things
you didn't create or make a documented contribution to. Nobody believes
your ludicrous statements, but you want attention so much you're willing to
risk ridicule for it.
> In the "Theater of Life", I'm the "stage manager" (not the producer),
> you'll never see me and will never remember my name, but my role is
> critical to the production.
yeah yeah yeah
First sentence: I'm an anonymous kingmaker, the man behind the curtain, want
my privacy... blah blah blah
Next sentence: My name is Rex Ballard. Here's a link to my website and
8-page personal biography. Refer to me as "Online consultant to a mailing
list of 4,000 publishers". I created Netscape and the web browsing
industry. I wrote the initial shttp specs. Microsoft uses my design
recommendations in Windows. I designed military weaponry in high school. I
generated hundreds of millions of dollars for FedEx in six months. Trust
me.
> You on the other hand, are the critic. Having absolutely no stake in
> the production, you will write amusing little insults, left-handed
> compliments, and don't even try to be responsible for your impact on
> the marketability of the production.
I work at my craft for my clients (that's my stake in the "production")
during the day, and play on cola some nights. And I watch Hell's Kitchen
and Top Chef and Carnivale and some reality shows on TV. And play golf,
poorly. What else do you want from me?
> Fortunately, the words of the critic are quickly forgotten as those
> who attend the production start telling their friends, and those who
> are "far less witty" generate demand for the production you trashed.
Do you know who Pauline Kael is? I'd rather read her film criticism than
watch most films.
> Some of the longest running shows on broadway and biggest box-office
> hits were trashed by "clever critics".
Sure. And Reefer Madness plays to packed midnight-movie screenings, and
some people on cola defend you as a "great man." There's no accounting for
some tastes.
spi...@freenet.co.uk
> Or are you just a critic, someone who has no interest in creating
> something new and extrordinary, just destroying, humiliating, and
> harassing those who do try?
You REALLY need to ask that?
This is DooFuS for feck's sake!
He's never contributed anything of value to this newsgroup.
Why would we expect the same from him elsewhere in life?
He's just a wintroll who's sole aim is to discredit linux and as many people
who support it as possible.
spi...@freenet.co.uk
> In this thread I've asked you over and over for some kind of reasonable, 3rd
> party proof of your fantastic claims.
And he's told you time and time again that
1: why should he have to prove anything to an ignorant twat like you
and
2: the only proof of many of his contributions is in tape archives that he
can't access (because he doesn't have the hardware and doesn't even know the
integrity of the archives)
He's been around a lot longer than you in this biz, so just shut it you
little pillock.
Given what you're claiming, and given
> that your name is not anywhere associated with these technologies and
> creations (while others are), it's not unreasonable to ask for proof.
I offered that explaination and Rex confirmed it.
rex -> boss -> published
credit taken by higher ups
happens all the time. (or do you deny that too?)
> What I get instead, over and over and over, is you obfuscating, snipping,
> sidestepping, ignoring, or just spewing gibberish.
And all he gets from you is obfuscating, sniping, snide remarks, ignorance
and spewing gibberish in return.
But that's all we ever expected from you, Doofy.
>> As early as 1985, I was suggesting that the ultimate programming
>> language would be a combination of FORTH, Smalltalk and C. I think
>> that's a pretty good descrption of Java.
> And unfortunately, you truly believe James Gosling read your post somewhere
> and was inspired to create Java, making you responsible for Java. Or did he
> get hold of your Dow Data Protocol first? It's so hard to remember.
I do wish you wouldn't put words in people's mouths, it's very irritating.
Whether rex made an accurate prediction or had an actual influence on java
is between history and Mr Gosling. Why not ask him?
>> Then, when the Internet grew from 2 million users to nearly 60 million
>> users "overnight",
> ... must have been in the mid-90's, when tens of millions of Windows 95
> users demanded and paid for 'Net access, thus driving down access costs to
> affordable levels, without which few of us would be posting to cola right
> now.
HAHAHAHA!!!
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAA!
HE SAID IT AGAIN!!!
LOOK GUYS!!! HE SAID IT AGAIN!
God, how can someone be so CLUELESS?
The internet was the last thing on microsoft's mind in '95.
It was a fad, it wasn't going to go anywhere.
>> Just curious do YOU have any idea how
>> extraordinary results are accomplished?
> With extraordinary efforts.
No doofy
That's not how many inventions work at all.
It's not one big thing, it's a dozen little things that come together at the
right time and place. Sometimes, there's someone there with the vision to
see a pattern and put them together. Sometimes there isn't and it takes
another few years before someone sees a similar pattern.
>> Or are you just a critic, someone who has no interest in creating
>> something new and extrordinary, just destroying, humiliating, and
>> harassing those who do try?
> If the claims you make are true, it would be impossible for me to destroy,
> humiliate or harass you. Since your claims are lies,
Prove it (you still have to prove it y'know)
All you've proved so far is you can't find the evidence TO prove it. Or
disprove it. So come on.
Prove it.
DFS
> DFS <nospam@dfs_.com> did eloquently scribble:
>> In this thread I've asked you over and over for some kind of
>> reasonable, 3rd party proof of your fantastic claims.
>
> And he's told you time and time again that
> 1: why should he have to prove anything to an ignorant twat like you
> and
> 2: the only proof of many of his contributions is in tape archives
> that he can't access (because he doesn't have the hardware and
> doesn't even know the integrity of the archives)
LOL! Why do you enjoy looking gullible and ignorant?
> Given what you're claiming, and given
>> that your name is not anywhere associated with these technologies and
>> creations (while others are), it's not unreasonable to ask for proof.
>
> I offered that explaination and Rex confirmed it.
> rex -> boss -> published
> credit taken by higher ups
> happens all the time. (or do you deny that too?)
Bullshit he said a boss took credit for any of the things I'm asking him
about. He took sole credit for most of them.
> I do wish you wouldn't put words in people's mouths, it's very
> irritating. Whether rex made an accurate prediction or had an actual
> influence on java is between history and Mr Gosling. Why not ask him?
Rex made the claim - he has to prove it. He's saying Sun and James Gosling
perpetrated a fraud on the world for 10 years.
>>> Then, when the Internet grew from 2 million users to nearly 60
>>> million users "overnight",
>
>> ... must have been in the mid-90's, when tens of millions of Windows
>> 95 users demanded and paid for 'Net access, thus driving down access
>> costs to affordable levels, without which few of us would be posting
>> to cola right now.
>
> HAHAHAHA!!!
> AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAA!
> HE SAID IT AGAIN!!!
> LOOK GUYS!!! HE SAID IT AGAIN!
>
> God, how can someone be so CLUELESS?
But that's exactly what happened. The proliferation of ISPs and cheap
Internet access didn't happen until millions and millions of Windows users
got on board. My strong suspicion is you first accessed cola via a Windows
machine.
>>> Or are you just a critic, someone who has no interest in creating
>>> something new and extrordinary, just destroying, humiliating, and
>>> harassing those who do try?
>
>> If the claims you make are true, it would be impossible for me to
>> destroy, humiliate or harass you. Since your claims are lies,
>
> Prove it (you still have to prove it y'know)
> All you've proved so far is you can't find the evidence TO prove it.
> Or disprove it. So come on.
> Prove it.
I'm getting the sense that you too were shafted by a boss - that you too
mentioned something on a newsgroup and created entire industries. Did you
draw up the designs for the space shuttle in 30 minutes in your bath one
night, only to have NASA take credit after breaking into your apartment
while you were asleep?
Rex and spike: unsung zeroes
spi...@freenet.co.uk
>> irritating. Whether rex made an accurate prediction or had an actual
>> influence on java is between history and Mr Gosling. Why not ask him?
> Rex made the claim - he has to prove it. He's saying Sun and James Gosling
> perpetrated a fraud on the world for 10 years.
Actually, rex hasn't made a claim here in ages other than to argue with
you.
YOU are making the CLAIM that HE is LYING on a totally unrelated medium to
this newsgroup... Therefore, it falls to you to prove YOURS.
>> HAHAHAHA!!!
>> AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAA!
>> HE SAID IT AGAIN!!!
>> LOOK GUYS!!! HE SAID IT AGAIN!
>>
>> God, how can someone be so CLUELESS?
> But that's exactly what happened. The proliferation of ISPs and cheap
> Internet access didn't happen until millions and millions of Windows users
> got on board. My strong suspicion is you first accessed cola via a Windows
> machine.
Well, you'd be wrong (as usual, what a surprise)
I first accessed the internet on a sun box. Of course, I wasn't interested
in linux until I got my first PC some time later, which had windows 3.11 on
it, which lasted about 1 hour just to see what was on it before wiping it
and installing SuSE 5.2. That was about 7 years ago and I never looked back.
I've never owned a windows machine, discounting that 1 hour.
Prior to the PC I did all my work on an upgraded QL.
Did everything I needed at the time.
>> Prove it (you still have to prove it y'know)
>> All you've proved so far is you can't find the evidence TO prove it.
>> Or disprove it. So come on.
>> Prove it.
> I'm getting the sense that you too were shafted by a boss - that you too
> mentioned something on a newsgroup and created entire industries.
You can have whatever ideas you like.
> Did you
> draw up the designs for the space shuttle in 30 minutes in your bath one
> night,
Ah, using the same argument but different year now.
Last time it was apollo 13. You're running out of steam.
--
______________________________________________________________________________
| spi...@freenet.co.uk | |
|Andrew Halliwell BSc(hons)| "The day Microsoft makes something that doesn't |
| in | suck is probably the day they start making |
| Computer science | vacuum cleaners" - Ernst Jan Plugge |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Linonut
> But that's exactly what happened. The proliferation of ISPs and cheap
> Internet access didn't happen until millions and millions of Windows users
> got on board. My strong suspicion is you first accessed cola via a Windows
> machine.
My first access to newsgroups was via a Dec terminal attached to a
DEC-10.
My second was through a VIC-20.
My third was through an Atari ST.
My fourth was using a low-end (68000) Sun workstation.
My fifth was through DOS used as a terminal to attach to a Sun server.
Finally, I used Windows.
Now, I use Linux.
--
0 and 1. Now what could be so hard about that?
Mark Kent
Linonut <lin...@bone.com> espoused:
Wow - here's a thought - what computers ... hmm, well, here's a really
quick walk-through - not comprehensive, but not bad:
Honeywell mainframe via 300 baud acoustically coupled modem, paper
teletype with card reader & tape punch (wonderful machine), had fortran,
basic, star trek and adventure.
Programmable calculator (TI?) - very useful! (must go digging to see if
I still have it.) ah - no, I think commodore PR100 was the name
Commodore pet 32k calc keyboard
Commodore pet 64k proper keyboard
Dragon 32 with cassette storage
6809 development kit running flex
8080-based machine with direct binary machine-code entry using switches
(that was /very/ boring to programme!)
Amstrad CPC 6128 running CPM - wrote fax software in Z80 ass'y on that
Various: Atari, Commodore, Sinclair Z100 (still use it for serial
access to server as it supports VT100)
IBM 80186, 640k ram - turbo pascal & st220 for Vax access, all-in-one
IBM 80286, as above, but also dialup/back and X.25 access to ITU site,
Dec unix machine (type unknown) with internet access via gopher; lynx
was a gopher option, and newsgroup access was provided
IBM 80386 - main work development machine for some time running DRDOS
Then loads of different PCs...
Zenith 486 running debian, X with twm, netscape; nwserv for drdos
machines, later freedos - doom networking :-)
Psion 5mx with infra-red & serial port - useful for serial access to
PCs
Nokia N770, Motorola A680, TomTom Go700... all linux
My eldest lad was looking at MP3 players, but I've just shown him the
GP2X, so I think he'll go for that. The price is good, and it has a
really neat little expansion board which supports standard peripherals.
--
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
Good day to avoid cops. Crawl to work.
DFS
> DFS <nospam@dfs_.com> did eloquently scribble:
>> ... must have been in the mid-90's, when tens of millions of Windows
>> 95 users demanded and paid for 'Net access, thus driving down access
>> costs to affordable levels, without which few of us would be posting
>> to cola right now.
>
> HAHAHAHA!!!
> AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAA!
> HE SAID IT AGAIN!!!
> LOOK GUYS!!! HE SAID IT AGAIN!
>
> God, how can someone be so CLUELESS?
In the same way that Windows users drive Internet adoption and fund ISPs
that achieve economies of scale which allow Linux users to get inexpensive
'Net access, Windows users drive hardware adoption and fund new product
development that eventually allows cheap Linux users to get cheap hardware.
Windows users don't buy it at high prices = Linux users never get it for low
prices. See how that works? That makes you and Linux a sort of charity
case.
So, can you see the debt of gratitude you owe to MS and Bill Gates? Don't
worry - I'll thank them for you via bi...@microsoft.com.
John Bailo
> In the same way that Windows users drive Internet adoption and fund ISPs
> that achieve economies of scale which allow Linux users to get inexpensive
> 'Net access, Windows users drive hardware adoption and fund new product
> development that eventually allows cheap Linux users to get cheap hardware.
The web would be much further along with Linux...*ALONE*.
Linonut
> In the same way that Windows users drive Internet adoption and fund ISPs
> that achieve economies of scale which allow Linux users to get inexpensive
> 'Net access, Windows users drive hardware adoption and fund new product
> development that eventually allows cheap Linux users to get cheap hardware.
Now now, you know that Windows users were just about the last ones to
get in on the Internet. As ARPAnet, it was doing just fine.
So you should be thanking the military, not Microsoft, for that part of
the computing infrastructure.
And don't forget that, significant as it is on the consumer desktop,
Microsoft is still only about 10% of the IT world.
> Windows users don't buy it at high prices = Linux users never get it for low
> prices. See how that works? That makes you and Linux a sort of charity
> case.
I'd rather that Atari and Commodore (among others) were still around to
provide low prices through competition. The first $100 "PC" was a
Commodore, wasn't it <grin>?
The economy of scale of the PC is nice, of course, as long as you don't
purchase the monopoly software that comes with it.
--
Reinvent yourself! -- Bill Gates
Da'Punk-A
It's certainly true that the unholy Wintel alliance caused the
proliferation of PCs that Linux users use. But that was certainly not
Gates' plan. His intention (obviously, duh) was for all these
computers to have licensed copies of his software on them. Making him
lots of dough. If Vista ever appears, it will help Linux even more -
perfectly serviceable machines will be useless vis-a-vis Vista, so
die-hard idiots^H^H^H^H^H^H Microsoft users will have to trade them in.
Then Linux users like me can buy 'em cheap. I suppose you think I
should thank Gates for that too?
I'm surprised Gates hasn't come up with a clause in his licenses that
demands old Windows boxes are destroyed rather than allowing them to
fall into the hands of deviants such as me.
Da'Punk-A
Ah, memory lane...
My dad was always a tech buff (he learnt electronics while doing
National Service in the British Army, he was in the Royal Signals) -
when I was a kid he was a TV repairman. When those rather primitive
"tennis" kind of games were released - you had a "ball" going across
the screen, you moved a thing up and down to deflect it - he actually
built his own, for me and my brother to play with.
My stepdad was also an electrician (repairing jukeboxes, arcade-style
video games, fruit machine gamblers and the like) and had the same kind
of interests. He actually bought a Sinclair ZX81 - monochrome TV
display, 1K of on-board RAM, a real joke by today's standards. But back
then it was a marvel.
A friend of mine had a Vic-20. Then I got a Sinclair ZX Spectrum.
Amazing. A colour computer you could hold in one hand. Then my school
built a computer lab with 30 BBC-Bs. You Americans ever see the BBC
micro? It was cool. I took Computer Studies at school to O Level,
learnt programming in Basic. Got grade A for my programming project (a
very basic English-French translator with a dictionary of 500 words,
LOL!)
Before that, the local library got a TRS-80 from somewhere, and I spent
many happy afternoons playing Star Trek on that. Plus a buddy tried to
teach me what he called "machine code" programming. PEEK and POKE - I
never got the hang of that.
When I look at what my laptop is capable of - and it's nearly 10 years
old, not high tech in any way - it amazes me how far computing has
advanced in 20-odd years.
Linonut
> I'm surprised Gates hasn't come up with a clause in his licenses that
> demands old Windows boxes are destroyed rather than allowing them to
> fall into the hands of deviants such as me.
Yeah, Microsoft could have a "PC Euthanasia" program to go along with
their "Naked PC" program.
"From birth to death, Microsoft has a full life-cycle plan for your
PC. Microsoft guarantees that your PC is born a Windows machine, and
dies a Windows machine. And our life-cycle plan is good for the
environment, too."
--
Press every key to continue.
Mark Kent
Da'Punk-A <dap...@googlemail.com> espoused:
Ah, got taught properly, then...
> when I was a kid he was a TV repairman. When those rather primitive
> "tennis" kind of games were released - you had a "ball" going across
> the screen, you moved a thing up and down to deflect it - he actually
> built his own, for me and my brother to play with.
Recall them very well indeed - I used to play one at our local swimming
pool after a swim - it was great fun. I went on to buy an atari 2600
games machine from that...
>
> My stepdad was also an electrician (repairing jukeboxes, arcade-style
> video games, fruit machine gamblers and the like) and had the same kind
> of interests. He actually bought a Sinclair ZX81 - monochrome TV
> display, 1K of on-board RAM, a real joke by today's standards. But back
> then it was a marvel.
They were wonderful machines, and actually brought computing to the
masses in the kind of way which MS like to claim that they did. Clive
Sinclair did some great things over the years.
>
> A friend of mine had a Vic-20. Then I got a Sinclair ZX Spectrum.
> Amazing. A colour computer you could hold in one hand. Then my school
> built a computer lab with 30 BBC-Bs. You Americans ever see the BBC
> micro? It was cool. I took Computer Studies at school to O Level,
> learnt programming in Basic. Got grade A for my programming project (a
> very basic English-French translator with a dictionary of 500 words,
> LOL!)
We had an optional computing course at school which I took - it was
quite useful, but I'd already been teaching myself anyway. I was also
interested in amateur radio, and had been working at the local tv repair
shop since I was 14, because I was very good at it.
>
> Before that, the local library got a TRS-80 from somewhere, and I spent
> many happy afternoons playing Star Trek on that.
Star trek was a great game. What I particularly liked about the
honeywell version is that the photon torpedoes followed proper triangle
theory on the printed grid (this was on paper, of course), so that you
could get out your sin/cos/tan tables and calculate the direction very
precisely to hit the klingons. Later versions of this game which I saw
on a friend's acorn atom had a battle computer to work it for you...
(dumbing down started so long ago :-)
> Plus a buddy tried to
> teach me what he called "machine code" programming. PEEK and POKE - I
> never got the hang of that.
It was a truly painful way to write software, but could've been really
useful had there been slightly better info around about it, I think.
You had to a) know the processor, b) know the machine and c) have an
assembler chart for the processor too, and be able to do hand assembly.
Still, it was rewarding even getting very simple things to work.
>
> When I look at what my laptop is capable of - and it's nearly 10 years
> old, not high tech in any way - it amazes me how far computing has
> advanced in 20-odd years.
>
It's come a long way, but I do think that when Windows 3.1 came along,
desktop computing pretty much stagnated. We've had about 10 years of
stagnation now, but this is why the linux offerings are so good, they've
had 10 years of zero progress from MS, so there was a period of catching
up in some areas, but also, there's been 10 years of getting ahead in
many areas too. Just look at liveCDs, net-based package distribution,
proper security models, etc. etc.
--
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
Kiss a non-smoker; taste the difference.
DFS
heh.. good one.
DFS
Guess what? He made his dream come true.
> If Vista ever appears, it will help Linux even more -
> perfectly serviceable machines will be useless vis-a-vis Vista,
Why lie? Of course they won't be useless. They may not be able to run all
Vista features, but most XP machines will be able to run Vista.
> so
> die-hard idiots^H^H^H^H^H^H Microsoft users will have to trade them
> in. Then Linux users like me can buy 'em cheap. I suppose you think I
> should thank Gates for that too?
I think so. You just said MS was directly responsible for recent-generation
equipment being traded in on the cheap.
> I'm surprised Gates hasn't come up with a clause in his licenses that
> demands old Windows boxes are destroyed rather than allowing them to
> fall into the hands of deviants such as me.
Don't give them any ideas.
spi...@freenet.co.uk
>> Plus a buddy tried to
>> teach me what he called "machine code" programming. PEEK and POKE - I
>> never got the hang of that.
> It was a truly painful way to write software, but could've been really
> useful had there been slightly better info around about it, I think.
> You had to a) know the processor, b) know the machine and c) have an
> assembler chart for the processor too, and be able to do hand assembly.
> Still, it was rewarding even getting very simple things to work.
At least on the zx spectrum all the opcodes were listed in the manual.
You could of course get an assembler to do the conversions from
LD HL,34542
LD A, (HL)
RET
type stuff
But it wasn't that hard with all the op codes in front of you.
Didn't do much that was overly complex but the old stripey border and
attribute wipe routines were simple enough.
--
______________________________________________________________________________
| spi...@freenet.co.uk | "I'm alive!!! I can touch! I can taste! |
|Andrew Halliwell BSc(hons)| I can SMELL!!! KRYTEN!!! Unpack Rachel and |
| in | get out the puncture repair kit!" |
| Computer Science | Arnold Judas Rimmer- Red Dwarf |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
spi...@freenet.co.uk
> I'd rather that Atari and Commodore (among others) were still around to
> provide low prices through competition. The first $100 "PC" was a
> Commodore, wasn't it <grin>?
No. It was a sinclair.
(The zx80 or zx81)
--
| |What to do if you find yourself stuck in a crack|
| spi...@freenet.co.uk |in the ground beneath a giant boulder, which you|
| |can't move, with no hope of rescue. |
|Andrew Halliwell BSc(hons)|Consider how lucky you are that life has been |
| in |good to you so far... |
| Computer Science | -The BOOK, Hitch-hiker's guide to the galaxy.|
Sinister Midget
> I'm surprised Gates hasn't come up with a clause in his licenses that
> demands old Windows boxes are destroyed rather than allowing them to
> fall into the hands of deviants such as me.
That's the next wave. first he's gotta followup on his dream of
enslaving the Chinese:
http://news.com.com/2100-1023-212942.html
Gates shed some light on his own hard-nosed business philosophy.
"Although about 3 million computers get sold every year in China,
but people don't pay for the software," he said. "Someday they will,
though. As long as they are going to steal it, we want them to steal
ours. They'll get sort of addicted, and then we'll somehow figure
out how to collect sometime in the next decade."
Mr. Monopoly doesn't have much time to pull it off now (2008 it should
be "sort of" figured out according to that article). He's having to
pull more and more tricks to get people /outside/ China to pay. There's
no evidence that he's having any luck changing the direction /in/ China
as well. The rest of the world is moving away from his crapware.
No wonder he wants to leave. He can't make it too fast or it looks like
he's cutting and running. But he needs to get out before he has to take
the blame for the eventual collapse.
Better to play World's Greatest Philanthropist so he can be praised for
giving his ill-gotten goods away than to continue playing Emporer while
Redmond burns.
--
Money is better than poverty, if only for financial reasons.
-- Woody Allen
Mark Kent
spi...@freenet.co.uk <spi...@freenet.co.uk> espoused:
> Mark Kent <mark...@demon.co.uk> did eloquently scribble:
>>> Plus a buddy tried to
>>> teach me what he called "machine code" programming. PEEK and POKE - I
>>> never got the hang of that.
>
>> It was a truly painful way to write software, but could've been really
>> useful had there been slightly better info around about it, I think.
>> You had to a) know the processor, b) know the machine and c) have an
>> assembler chart for the processor too, and be able to do hand assembly.
>> Still, it was rewarding even getting very simple things to work.
>
> At least on the zx spectrum all the opcodes were listed in the manual.
> You could of course get an assembler to do the conversions from
> LD HL,34542
> LD A, (HL)
> RET
> type stuff
>
> But it wasn't that hard with all the op codes in front of you.
>
> Didn't do much that was overly complex but the old stripey border and
> attribute wipe routines were simple enough.
It was much easier with a real assembler, though. I wrote some 6809
ass'y with a proper assembler, which was very handy, as the 6809 had so
many addressing modes, you couldn't write the hex without the cheat
sheet, looking up bitmasks. The z80 was easier, but even that with a
good assembler was nice to write for. I did various bits of peeking and
poking on 6502, 6809 and Z80 machines, but it's slow and tedious to
write anything of import that way.
Still, to this day, I'm still amazed that the 8080 series became the
dominant player, with the far superior 68000 series falling by the
wayside.
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
at 03:15 PM, spi...@freenet.co.uk said:
>You can have whatever ideas you like.
ObQuirk. She/he/it lacks the mental capacity to have complex ideas.
That's why s/h/it is concentrating on challenging Rex over issues
where the supporting data, if any, are inaccessible.
Now, there have been things that Rex got wrong, but those seemed to
have been in the category of a bad memory. I'd trust Rex far more than
I would DFS.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT <http://patriot.net/~shmuel>
Unsolicited bulk E-mail subject to legal action. I reserve the
right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive E-mail. Reply to
domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me. Do not
reply to spam...@library.lspace.org
Rex Ballard
DFS wrote:
> spi...@freenet.co.uk wrote:
> > DFS <nospam@dfs_.com> did eloquently scribble:
>
> >> ... must have been in the mid-90's, when tens of millions of Windows
> >> 95 users demanded and paid for 'Net access, thus driving down access
> >> costs to affordable levels, without which few of us would be posting
> >> to cola right now.
> >
> > HAHAHAHA!!!
> > AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAA!
> > HE SAID IT AGAIN!!!
> > LOOK GUYS!!! HE SAID IT AGAIN!
> >
> > God, how can someone be so CLUELESS?
>
> In the same way that Windows users drive Internet adoption and fund ISPs
> that achieve economies of scale which allow Linux users to get inexpensive
> 'Net access, Windows users drive hardware adoption and fund new product
> development that eventually allows cheap Linux users to get cheap hardware.
DFS, you REALLY need to try to do some homework before you make
statements like this. You should just take a few days to make some
attempt to dig into the real history of the Internet, especially from
1990 to 1996.
The Windows user community was mostly using Prodigy, Compuserv, and an
upstart called AOL funded, in part, by Paul Allen.
Most Windows users paid as much as $6/hour for dial-up access to these
services. After several years, by 1994, the "dial-up" user base had
grown to about 3 million users on these services.
Most of the early Internet pops were PANIX sites. Public Access
Network/Internet eXchange. These were usually slip dial-ups which
provided local access to students, teachers, researchers, and their
friends.
Most of the early servers were small Sun Workstations such as the SLC,
which had a black and white display.
At the same time, there were lots of small little independent BBS
operators. For a few dollars a month, you could dial-in to their Fido,
WildCat, or Waffle servers and send-recieve e-mail. Many of these BBS
operators also forwarded email to the NSFNet, often using PANIX sites.
Most of these operators were even prettty lax about collecting their
money. If they got a few checks, that was great, but the collection
was about 20% effective.
In 1993, the availability of low cost Linux and BSD/386 servers made it
possible to create a UNIX API compatible server for about $1000, even
less if you used older equipment.
Hundreds of these little BBS operators converted their BBS machines to
Linux, which made it possible for them to provide dial-up services to
local users for very modest fees, again, a few dollars per month for
e-mail and news (NNTP) service.
In 1994, the availability of Trumpet WinSock and Mosaic, both of which
could be put on a single 1.44 Mbyte floppy disk, made it possible for
Windows 3.1 users to access these dial-up servers and access web
servers. There weren't many servers, and almost none of them were
commercial severs, but you could get to the Smithsonian institute, and
you could get to a 90 day archive of Dow Jones news articles.
Over the next 12 months, the little BBS networks began adding more
lines, and increasing speeds on the back-end connections. Modems were
even beginning to exceed the capacities of Windows 3.1. AOL was
offering it's users direct access to "the internet" including FTP,
e-mail, and NNTP news articles. The smaller BBS/POPS began going to
each other and to high capacity connections such as T1 connections to
the MCI internet backbone.
Microsoft didn't really start to take notice of the Internet as a real
issue until Netscape went public and the stock went shooting. At that
point, Microsoft began to notice that the Netscape APIs were providing
Linux/UNIX style APIs. Furthermore, both Mosaic and Netscape were
available for both Windows and UNIX.
This was about the point when Microsoft began offering TCP/IP for
Workgroup for Windows (Windows 3.11). Even at this point, however,
Microsoft was far more fixated on Lotus Notes, and wanted to create a
"Notes Killer" called "Exchange".
Microsoft did finally obtain the rights to the NCSA Mosaic Web browser
through Spyglass for about $2 million, after other companies like
Prodigy, Compuserve, AOL, and several other companies had purchased
"Branding rights" to put their logo and bookmarks into the browser.
Microsoft released Windows 95 initially without the browser. Even as
late as August of 1995, Microsoft was still resisting the whole idea of
the Web and the Internet. IE was sold as part of a software bundle, I
think it cost about $20. I think even Microsoft was surprised at the
demand.
Microsoft DID finally get very actively involved in the Internet, when
they decided to "lock out" Linux and Trumpet users by offering the
largest pops and dialup servers PPP servers based on Windows NT 3.5,
complete with MS-CHAP. This did provide an exclusive connection for
Microsoft Windows 95 users, but these connections were usually much
higher priced than the BBS/POP "supernets". Prices could be as high as
$40 per month with connection rates as high as $3/hour.
> Windows users don't buy it at high prices = Linux users never get it for low
> prices. See how that works? That makes you and Linux a sort of charity
> case.
That is almost the opposite of practical history. Linux users paid
very little for the software, and a little for support, and a little
more for services such as Web Hosting.
Windows users, on the other hand, must spend hundreds, even thousands
of dollars to get anything beyond the most basic "shovelware"
functionality. On the other hand, the big-ticket prices tend to
promote piracy.
Shareware for Windows has become an increasingly high risk proposition.
> So, can you see the debt of gratitude you owe to MS and Bill Gates? Don't
> worry - I'll thank them for you via bi...@microsoft.com.
Bill Gates himself admits that he seriously blew it when he missed the
internet. He also points to this as one of the best examples at how
effectiely Microsoft has recovered from even it's biggest failures.
This a very accurate assessment. Microsoft took the internet and Linux
for granted, assuming that they would dissappear in a few months.
Instad, the Internet became a huge driver for Windows 9x and Windows
NT. Microsoft really had to scramble to keep up.
You can find several really good books on the period, in the local
public library. Look at some of the books by Nicholas Negroponte. He
was very directly involved during that era.
spi...@freenet.co.uk
> begin In <fvs7n3-...@ridcully.fsnet.co.uk>, on 06/27/2006
> at 03:15 PM, spi...@freenet.co.uk said:
>>You can have whatever ideas you like.
> ObQuirk. She/he/it lacks the mental capacity to have complex ideas.
> That's why s/h/it is concentrating on challenging Rex over issues
> where the supporting data, if any, are inaccessible.
> Now, there have been things that Rex got wrong, but those seemed to
> have been in the category of a bad memory. I'd trust Rex far more than
> I would DFS.
Ditto. If only because DFS has been consistently rude AND wrong since he got
'ere.
ex.mack...@gmail.com
that the USof A army stole ideas for secret weapons from?
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/d2c882acec24b0b9
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/857f500a95e61f12
It's scary to think this Linux dude is running around in a dress
proclaiming Linux as Queen of the operating systems.
WTF?
DFS wrote:
> "I was one of the many legal minds which Richard Stallman solicited in a the
> net.legal newsgroups back in 1984. Gosling, I'm not sure if that's the same
> Gosling of Java fame, had just come out with a version of emacs which
> supported some very popular printers. The price tag for this "enhanced"
> version was steep, something like $300/user. Many emacs users were sending
> Richard nasty notes, and even threats, because they thought he had
> deliberately ripped off the developers, thousands of whom had been working
> on and enhancing emacs.
>
> When Richard approach Gosling, he was rebuffed. Because the original version
> was placed into the simtel-20 archives under a public domain license,
> Richard had no legal control over derivative works.
>
> He approached us in this newsgroup, and about 50 lawyers and others
> experienced in copyright law went through the law books and legal judgements
> to research the most effective ways to satisfy Richard Stallman's goals of
> preventing people from simply taking the efforts of thousands of staff-years
> and making a 2 staff-week enhancement then selling it for some rediculous
> price to make $millions or $billions.
>
> My own background was in performing arts management, where copyrights and
> derivative rights including performance rights are very carefully watched
> and monitored. There were others who were experienced intellectual property
> rights lawyers, and even a professor from Cornel Law School.
>
> As we reviewed the goals, we drafted the language for what was first known
> as the "General Public License". A bit later, Richard Stallman formed the
> GNU project and renamed it the GNU Public License.
>
> The goals were very simple. Protect the efforts of thousands of
> professionals, students, and hackers who had volunteered time, experience,
> training, and effort, to create quality software in a collaborative
> environment, by preventing the publication of proprietary variants.
>
> Richard has been an outstanding guardian of that public trust, and now
> maintains control of one of the largest, most diverse, and most advanced
> software repositories in the world, surpassing even Microsoft's.
>
> Not all of us agree with Richard on all points. I disagreed with his efforts
> to let BISON "take ownership" of code which had been originally been created
> as source code for commercial products such as compilers or intellegent
> software. Eventually the issue was resolved with byacc which was a yacc-like
> variant released under the terms of the BSD license.
>
> At one time, the National Science Foundation's NCSA used a similar license.
> Under this open source GPL style license, the Web Browser and Web Server,
> along with thousands of other pieces of software commonly used today, were
> created and enhanced. But in 1994, Spyglass was granted permission to sell
> "Branding Rights" - the right to put a company logo and company sponsored
> bookmarks into the initial configuration files. When Prodigy tried to get
> rid of the ability to manually enter a URL, contributors balked, stating
> that this was an unacceptable change to the source code. At best, they
> wanted the source code so that they could put that address line back.
>
> Spyglass secretly sold the rights to Microsoft, who added some last minute
> changes to their version of the license, including the ability to make
> proprietary, unpublished changes to the original Mosaic code.
>
> When developers and contributors protested, loudly, the NCSA decided to
> rewrite the NCSA license, and retroactively license all of the software in
> it's archive under the new license. This was a bit like telling all of the
> people in a suburban neighborhood that they were building an airport that
> would have planes flying about 300 feet overhead, but offering nothing for
> the damages and lost real-estate value.
>
> Because it was a government agency making this decision, efforts to reclaim
> the original rights under the original terms were quickly thwarted.
>
> In retailation, contributors began publishing patches to the NCSA server,
> but under the terms of a "Forced Giveback" license similar to the GPL.
> Eventually, there were so many patches that the new server became known as
> "A patchy" server. The madison avenue types changed the spelling to apache,
> and this new server is still the most widely used server in the industry.
>
> Richard has also been flexible. Under licenses such as the LGPL, it became
> possible to create libraries which could run under GPL software, but would
> allow commercial software to call these "bridge" libraries without having to
> give back their source code.
>
> One of the problem today, is that there are thousands of patches and
> upgrades being released for Linux, which are only available under the terms
> of the GPL and LGPL. This means that proprietary products such as Microsoft
> Windows, SCO Unix, Apple OS/X, and numerous others, are unable to apply
> well-known patches and upgrades which are not available under their less
> restricted licenses.
>
> Open Source has also been creating problems for those who are attempting to
> patent software. In many cases, software patents involve disclosures of
> source code, which often can be traced back to GPL and LGPL roots. This can
> often nullify a patent, or place the patent itself under the legal umbrella
> of GPL.
>
> The problem is that companies like Microsoft and SCO want to feed from the
> GPL trough, but they want to kill off the very contributors who keep adding
> to and enhancing these GPL products."
>
>
> http://linux.sys-con.com/read/48833_f.htm
Andrew T.
> Is this...
Nobody here* cares.
Why did you x-post this boring thread from a linux group to
* comp.lang.java.programmer (...rec.photo.digital,
comp.os.linux.misc, 24hoursupport.helpdesk)?
Follow-Ups set to comp.os.linux.advocacy
Andrew T.
DFS
> "Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz" <spam...@library.lspace.org.invalid> did
> eloquently scribble:
>
>
>> begin In <fvs7n3-...@ridcully.fsnet.co.uk>, on 06/27/2006
>> at 03:15 PM, spi...@freenet.co.uk said:
>
>>> You can have whatever ideas you like.
>
>> ObQuirk. She/he/it lacks the mental capacity to have complex ideas.
>> That's why s/h/it is concentrating on challenging Rex over issues
>> where the supporting data, if any, are inaccessible.
"Inaccessible data" are his middle names. Other names he likes are
"nondisclosure agreement", "Google didn't archive it", "boss took credit",
"degrees of separation", "man behind the curtain", and "guarded my privacy".
Feel free to help him prove he:
* created the web browsing industry in 6 months by typing responses to
online mailing lists
* wrote the initial specs for shttp
* wrote or helped write the language/protocol Sun based Java on
* his work "led to...Linux"
* generated approx $750 million operating income for FedEx within a few
months of working there
* because of him, FedEx won the Malcolm Baldridge Quality Award
* MS used his recommendations in DOS
* MS incorporated his suggestions into Windows 2000
* he called for Linux to "take the desktop" and a year later Linus Torvalds
took up the cause
* many organizations began contributing to the Free Software Foundation only
because he requested they do so
* he wrote some of the actual words of the first GPL
* Martin-Marietta developed military weaponry out of handwritten notes he
made in high school, which they stole
out of his locker (ROFL!!! pure schizo).
* he invented the concept of remote procedure calls.
* he saved IBM nearly $24 million (my estimate, based on his claim of
man-years savings presented to IBM)
* that OEMs offering dual-boot Windows and Linux systems is his idea
* that the author of YACC released it under a BSD license because Rex asked
him to
He needs your help. Though the ridiculous claims and lies flow
effortlessly, for some reason he can't provide proof of ANY of this. NONE
OF IT. No emails, no meeting minutes, no patent applications, no historical
documents, no name in any credit screens, no webpages associating him with
any of it, no credible 3rd parties coming to his defense (cola "advocates"
don't count).
Nothing but vapor.
>> Now, there have been things that Rex got wrong,
You think? Like ALL of his supposed contributions to computing and the
Internet?
>> but those seemed to have been in the category of a
>> bad memory.
ah yes, another favorite excuse of his: "typing from memory". Funnily
enough, the idiocy ALWAYS goes against MS, and for Linux.
>> I'd trust Rex far more than I would DFS.
That's because you're an "advocate"; you have no integrity. You'll lie
through your teeth about MS and Windows, and about the performance and
capabilities of Linux.
You [and most of cola] will support someone like Rex Ballard, a congenital,
serial liar who can barely speak a sentence about MS without lying, who
makes a steady stream of outlandish claims for years on end.
And it hasn't abated. For instance, he recently said "there is so much BSD
in the [Windows] kernel, libraries, and applications, and so much open
source (which legally permits publication of proprietary derivative
products) that it's not too much different from putting Windows API around
FreeBSD 2.0 and selling it as better than Windows NT."
What a guy! What a group of "advocates"!
> Ditto. If only because DFS has been consistently rude AND wrong since
> he got 'ere.
True, I may have been consistently rude (or forceful, it depends on the cola
bozo I was addressing), but that's how you have to speak to hysterical cola
"advocates". But I haven't been consistently wrong, about anything.
DFS
> DFS wrote:
>> In the same way that Windows users drive Internet adoption and fund
>> ISPs that achieve economies of scale which allow Linux users to get
>> inexpensive 'Net access, Windows users drive hardware adoption and
>> fund new product development that eventually allows cheap Linux
>> users to get cheap hardware.
>
> DFS, you REALLY need to try to do some homework before you make
> statements like this. You should just take a few days to make some
> attempt to dig into the real history of the Internet, especially from
> 1990 to 1996.
Why?
I know Usenet predates Windows by a long time (1980), and was written on
Unix. I know MS/Bill Gates admitted to missing the 'Net boat until '95 or
so. I also know it wasn't until huge numbers of Windows users embraced it
that Internet usage exploded and made successes of Yahoo, Google and many
other sites.
> The Windows user community was mostly using Prodigy, Compuserv, and an
> upstart called AOL funded, in part, by Paul Allen.
Yes, I used CompuServe myself, in the 1994-95 time frame. I used it to sell
extra software online.
> Hundreds of these little BBS operators converted their BBS machines to
> Linux,
How do you know?
> Microsoft did finally obtain the rights to the NCSA Mosaic Web browser
> through Spyglass for about $2 million,
$8 million.
http://www.windowsitpro.com/Article/ArticleID/16683/16683.html?Ad=1
> Microsoft released Windows 95 initially without the browser. Even as
> late as August of 1995, Microsoft was still resisting the whole idea
> of the Web and the Internet. IE was sold as part of a software
> bundle, I think it cost about $20. I think even Microsoft was
> surprised at the demand.
I don't remember which version, but I bought IE with a small book for $15 or
$20.
>> Windows users don't buy it at high prices = Linux users never get it
>> for low prices. See how that works? That makes you and Linux a
>> sort of charity case.
>
> That is almost the opposite of practical history. Linux users paid
> very little for the software, and a little for support, and a little
> more for services such as Web Hosting.
I was talking about hardware.
>> So, can you see the debt of gratitude you owe to MS and Bill Gates?
>> Don't worry - I'll thank them for you via bi...@microsoft.com.
>
> Bill Gates himself admits that he seriously blew it when he missed the
> internet. He also points to this as one of the best examples at how
> effectiely Microsoft has recovered from even it's biggest failures.
> This a very accurate assessment. Microsoft took the internet and
> Linux for granted, assuming that they would dissappear in a few
> months. Instad, the Internet became a huge driver for Windows 9x and
> Windows NT. Microsoft really had to scramble to keep up.
>
> You can find several really good books on the period, in the local
> public library. Look at some of the books by Nicholas Negroponte. He
> was very directly involved during that era.
Thanks for the short history.
spi...@freenet.co.uk
Nay, nay and thice nay
I've told you before...
The proof falls to you, to DISprove his claims.
And lack of evidence is not proof or disproof.
History is like that.
Details get lost, the winners rewrite it, hundreds of lies get transcribed
and accepted as the truth every day.
Did washington ever truly say "I shall not tell a lie"? or was it just a
little anecdote he used to tell his friends to fool them into believing he
was honest?
Was Gengis Khan really the bloodthirsty barbarian everyone claims he was?
Or have a thousand years of DFS style character assassination made this a
"fact"?
Got a time machine, cos it's the only way you'll ever find out.
>> Ditto. If only because DFS has been consistently rude AND wrong since
>> he got 'ere.
> True, I may have been consistently rude (or forceful, it depends on the cola
> bozo I was addressing),
No, rude through and through.
Or are cola nut, cola bozo, linux loony etc polite terms?
Because you've been using those attacks since day one.
They're what identified you as a troll, if you'd been more subtle we might
not've spotted your trollishness straight away, but you wouldn't know subtle
if it sidled up to you and picked you pocket.
spi...@freenet.co.uk
> Unix. I know MS/Bill Gates admitted to missing the 'Net boat until '95 or
> so. I also know it wasn't until huge numbers of Windows users embraced it
> that Internet usage exploded and made successes of Yahoo, Google and many
> other sites.
What you are FAILING to take into account though, is, it wasn't the os, or
microsoft that had anything to do with this.
It was the USERS! Not windows, not microsoft. They would've joined the
internet no matter what operating system was running on their machines.
At that time, microsoft truly was irrelevant in that stage of history.
DFS
> DFS <nospam@dfs_.com> did eloquently scribble:
>> I know Usenet predates Windows by a long time (1980), and was
>> written on Unix. I know MS/Bill Gates admitted to missing the 'Net
>> boat until '95 or so. I also know it wasn't until huge numbers of
>> Windows users embraced it that Internet usage exploded and made
>> successes of Yahoo, Google and many other sites.
>
> What you are FAILING to take into account though, is, it wasn't the
> os, or microsoft that had anything to do with this.
> It was the USERS! Not windows, not microsoft.
True. The Microsoft Windows USERS!
> They would've joined the internet no matter what operating
> system was running on their machines.
That's just speculation. The world had years to embrace other operating
systems - before, during and after Windows.
> At that time, microsoft truly was irrelevant in that stage of history.
spi...@freenet.co.uk
> systems - before, during and after Windows.
On the PC?
Yeah, there was DOS.
And microsoft did every sneaky little thing they could to keep their dos on
machines.
--
______________________________________________________________________________
Rex Ballard
> spi...@freenet.co.uk wrote:
> > "Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz" <spam...@library.lspace.org.invalid> did
> > eloquently scribble:
> >> begin In <fvs7n3-...@ridcully.fsnet.co.uk>, on 06/27/2006
> >> at 03:15 PM, spi...@freenet.co.uk said:
> >
> >>> You can have whatever ideas you like.
> >
> >> ObQuirk. She/he/it lacks the mental capacity to have complex ideas.
> >> That's why s/h/it is concentrating on challenging Rex over issues
> >> where the supporting data, if any, are inaccessible.
>
>
> * created the web browsing industry in 6 months by typing responses to
> online mailing lists
Actually, I had been working on this project for over 2 years.
You can confirm that I worked at Dow Jones from January 1992 to March
of 1995.
You can also confirm that someone named Greg Gerdy worked there
during that period.
You should be able to confirm the existence of a mailing list called
"online-newspapers"
and another one called "online-news".
http://www.open4success.org/Olnews/1995/03/index.html
<quote>
Alan, you were correct, the group is online-newspapers.
To subscribe, mail e-mail to Majo...@marketplace.com
On the first line put:
subscribe online-newspapers @nrs.dowjones.com
To unsubscribe, send
unsubscribe online-newspapers @nrs.dowjones.com
>From rbal...@cnj.digex.net Thu Mar 2 23:33:58 1995
</quote>
<quote>
I posted under a few different identities:
<quote>
Message-ID:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
unsubscribe online-news re...@eng.dowjones.com (Rex Ballard)
unsubscribe online-newspapers re...@eng.dowjones.com (Rex Ballard)
I am now rbal...@cnj.digex.net
</quote>
> * wrote the initial specs for shttp
Get the mailing list archive - if you can.
Feel free to search my archives
http://www.open4success.org/Olnews/index.html
http://www.open4success.org/Olnews/1995/
A letter of thanks from someone who appreciated what I had to say
http://www.open4success.org/Olnews/thanks/
Some of the earliest
http://www.open4success.org/Olnews/1994/
Sorry, it wasn't viewable because I hadn't built the links yet
(The cobbler's kids wear no shoes).
> * wrote or helped write the language/protocol Sun based Java on
> * his work "led to...Linux"
No, that was a "hobby" :D
Be careful about your language, otherwise SofTronics could claim to own
the Internet :D
> * generated approx $750 million operating income for FedEx within a few
> months of working there
That one is also pretty easy to check.
I worked at Federal Express from November of 1987 to November of 1990.
I worked on the SuperTracker for the COSMOS IIB project.
I received 2 "Bravo Zulu" awards from the company.
My team, led by Gene Farar, won the Malcom Baldridge award about 2
months after I left the company.
When I joined the company, the problem they had was that static
discharges would cause the tracker to reboot, loosing precious critical
data. I found a way to recover from these discharges without losing
any data where the "form" had been completed. In most cases we
recovered to the exact same prompt. The net result for the company,
fewer lost packages, fewer late packages (remember, if it's late, You
don't pay).
Bravo Zulu number one.
Second one the REX scan (Revenue EXception) scan, compared the
city/state with the zip code. If there was a mismatch, the customer
was charged an extra 50 cents. Result, fewer misrouted and late
packages.
> * because of him, FedEx won the Malcolm Baldridge Quality Award
When I joined the company we lost nearly 5% of all scans. Within less
than a year, we lost less than 10 scans per million. This increased
confidence in the SuperTracker, and scans were done at critical
checkpoints, allowing us to intercept misrouted packages BEFORE then
ended up in the wrong city. If a package was "lost" the police usually
got involved. We could trace down to the last known location of the
package - usually the destination station or the driver.
I didn't do this all by my self, I was part of a team of 12 people in
colorado springs, and 5 people in Memphis, who really put their necks
out to make this SuperTracker work. Several members of the team had
also worked on ZapMail - the high speed, high resolution Fax service.
> * MS used his recommendations in DOS
I applied to Microsoft for a job in 1981. They asked me for some
samples of my code.
One project I had been working on was how to more efficiently access
"network drives".
On CP/M, the BIOS requested every block from the remote server. I came
up with a way to intercept the BDOS calls, and have those passed to a
remote server, so that the directory searching and allocation did not
have to be passed across networks (remember, the network lines weren't
near as fast in 1980).
The employer was DataLaw. This one might be harder to verify since
they have been through about 3 mergers. Other team members were J.C.
Cook, Burt Harger, George Chardulius. Not sure about those spellings.
Burt also worked at Federal Express.
> * MS incorporated his suggestions into Windows 2000
I think you could probably find those suggestions in the usenet
archives on google.
On numerous occaisions, I have published technical comparisons between
various versions of Windows and versions of UNIX and Linux.
You might try looking here:
http://www.open4success.org/usanet/index.html
Most of these are nicely formatted versions of articles I posted to
usenet.
> * many organizations began contributing to the Free Software Foundation only
> because he requested they do so
I didn't say only because I said so. I said that I have requested that
companies contribute to Open Source Projects such as FSF if they are
getting profit from their services and intellectual property. It's a
reasonable request, and simply echos the same requests made by Richard
Stallman and most others. As a joke I suggested that those who had
contributed from my personal contributions (see references above)
contribute 1/10th of 1% of their profits from any business to the FSF.
They probably did so because they were already using OSS and already
planned to make such payments, not because they felt they owed me a
royalty. I certainly never tried to force anyone to make such payments
with contracts or license agreements.
I said what I said, and they did what they did. It could just be
coincidence.
(God working a miracle anonymously).
> * he wrote some of the actual words of the first GPL
I contributed to a usenet newsgroup net.legal from 1984 to 1985, during
which Richard and about 40 other contributors, including myself, began
looking at the copyright laws and license agreements, mainly inspired
by the way Microsoft abused them (in our minds at that time) to prevent
disclosure of intellectual concepts. Richard wanted to make sure that
people didn't take code that had been the result of collaboration among
many contributors, and repackage it as proprietary software, as had
happened to BSD Unix, BSD applications, and numerous public domain
packages contributed to Simtel20 (the DOD repository for "orphaned" and
other public domain source code).
> * Martin-Marietta developed military weaponry out of handwritten notes he
> made in high school, which they stole
> out of his locker (ROFL!!! pure schizo).
I don't buy that one myself. My 10th grade math teacher, who sponsored
the aviation club, and was also a quaker, sure did though.
I did catch someone from the military, an officer, going through
lockers while classes were in session at Merrill Jr High School in 1968
or 1969. Keep in mind that the war in Vietnam was in full heat, I was
one of many who openly opposed the war, and many of us had parents and
friends who opposed the war. In addition, there were several members
of the SDS (Students for a Democratic Society) in nearby Denver
University, along with South High, who were suspected of being
associated with the Weathermen, an organization which was believed to
be engaging in terrorist activities such as fire-bombing transformer
stations. My father was a property accountant with intimate knowledge
of this equipment, and part of his job was to go do field checks and
speak with the engineers. The search was justified. If there was a
warrant, that might even be in court records.
If I was under investigation, they would have found out very easily and
very quickly that I had a working knowledge of chemistry (including
explosives), aviation (including rocketry), and electronics, including
radio transmission and reception. This information could be found from
my libarary records from the Denver Public Library.
> * he invented the concept of remote procedure calls.
In about 1984, I suggested the possibility of using parser to generate
code to generate a request message generator and response parser in C.
I had been studying YACC at the time, and had been working on a number
of manually generated request generators and response parsers. I
discussed this idea with several people at CCI, and a posted inquiries
on the usenet newsgroups. When we came up empty, Larry Early, a Senior
Engineer at Computer Consoles Incorporated (CCI), wrote a parser that
was almost identical in function to RPCGen which is used in Remote
Procedure Calls.
Larry and I both corresponded with Bill Joy quite a bit, and Larry may
have even discussed how to implement his generator in conjunction with
Bill's sockets. My needs were for a proprietary serial link, but Larry
was working more closely with TCP/IP based technology at the time. I
joined Larry for a test data generator project later that year.
I do know that CCI swapped rights to this technology with Sun in
exchange for rights to NFS.
> * he saved IBM nearly $24 million (my estimate, based on his claim of
> man-years savings presented to IBM)
Again, pretty easy to prove. In October of 1991, IBM hired me as a
contractor to work on a project to create something like HSM
(Hierarchal storage management for non-mainframe people), for UNIX and
OS/2.
The original budget made now mention of reuse of any intellectual
property, and it was pretty obvious in attending the various leadership
meetings that the project designer was not familiar with products IBM
already had. Nor was he familiar with any of the open source
intellectual property.
I suggested that there might be some source code available in IBM's
repositories, such as HSM, that could be modified to meet the needs of
the project. I suggested that the project costs might be reduced by
10-20%. Because everything was going to be done "from scratch", they
had booked 100 people for over 2 years, mostly contractors.
The project lead figured that it might be worth having one person spend
2 weeks looking for what he could find. I was leading 12 people on
that site, including 8 who were on the project. I assigned one of them
to the task. Within the first week he had found about a dozen
candidates. By the end of the second week, he had doubled that. When
he summarized his findings, the IBM management realized that they could
rework the code we dug up, and have the project done by 10 IBM
employees in less than 6 months.
I don't know of this eventually evolved into, or became, Tivoli Storage
Manager or not.
I do know that they did have this functionality within IBM when I was
working on a port of X11 to AIX on S/390 architecture, because we were
using it.
> * that OEMs offering dual-boot Windows and Linux systems is his idea
Actually, that would have been Robert Young (the President of Red Hat
at the time), who would have done that. He offered quantity pricing as
low as $2 per copy, which included offers to OEMs. That was in early
1995. Keep in mind that Red Hat was so small, that it was unlikely
that he was taken seriously.
In 1999, Corel did one better. They went to the mother producers and
got them to license Corel Linux for fifty cents per copy. These
motherboards, along with the Linux licenses and installation media,
were then sent to the OEMs. Unfortunately, Microsoft's license
agreements with the OEMs not only prevented them from installing it,
but it also prevented them from including the free CD.
I certainly "talked up" the idea. I thought it was a great idea. Just
like I think it would be a great idea of the OEMs preinstalled VMWare
Player and a Linux VM with every Windows machine they sell. It's a
great idea (I think), but it's unlikely that Microsoft will permit them
to do this.
> * that the author of YACC released it under a BSD license
> because Rex asked him to
You just love putting words in my mouth, don't you.
I pointed to an actual article, citing an actual discussion between
Richard Stallman and myself, over the issue of BISON claiming ownership
of code generated by it's parser.
YACC was originally developed for AT&T V6 UNIX, and AT&T sold it as
their own. I'm not sure when YACC was freely available under BSD, but
I do remember that it was around this time.
> Nothing but vapor.
> You think? Like ALL of his supposed contributions to computing and the
> Internet?
So now you are saying that I had absolutely NOTHING to do with ANY
aspect of the Internet! Since you are now insisting that ALL of my
contributions are 'lies'.
I can provide means, motive, and opportunity. I can place my self at
the scene of the "crime" at, or very near, the time that it occurred.
There are guys sitting on death row based on less evidence than I have
provided, all anyone would have to do is some relatively simple
verification.
It took WAY TOO LONG to look up these references and give you even this
much information. I do have a rather large archive on my web site
which I will attempt to make available as time permits.
> >> but those seemed to have been in the category of a
> >> bad memory.
>
> >> I'd trust Rex far more than I would DFS.
>
> > Ditto. If only because DFS has been consistently rude AND wrong since
> > he got 'ere.
>
> True, I may have been consistently rude (or forceful, it depends on the cola
> bozo I was addressing), but that's how you have to speak to hysterical cola
> "advocates". But I haven't been consistently wrong, about anything.
Rex Ballard
http://www.open4success.org
Larry Qualig
spi...@freenet.co.uk wrote:
> DFS <nospam@dfs_.com> did eloquently scribble:
> > Feel free to help him prove he:
>
> Nay, nay and thice nay
> I've told you before...
>
> The proof falls to you, to DISprove his claims.
> And lack of evidence is not proof or disproof.
Your statement is ridiculous. Using your logic I could claim that I
alone designed the F-22 Raptor aircraft used by the USAF. This is now
true and the burden is on you to prove that I didn't. Go ahead... prove
that I did not design the F-22 Raptor.
> History is like that.
> Details get lost, the winners rewrite it, hundreds of lies get transcribed
> and accepted as the truth every day.
History is pretty well documented. Some minor details do get lost but
recent events are recorded and documented quite well. There are plenty
of sites/references/books on the development of the internet. Strange
how records and documentation exist for nearly everyone else who was
involved and credited with developing important technologies.
Do a Google search for Joe (JCR) Licklider, Lawrence Roberts or Paul
Baran and you'll find 100's of thousands of sites and references to
them. BTW.. these guys worked on developing networking technologies in
the 1950's and 1960's. Now do a Google search for Rex and see how many
relevant references there are. Is there even one?
Da'Punk-A
Larry Qualig wrote:
> spi...@freenet.co.uk wrote:
> > DFS <nospam@dfs_.com> did eloquently scribble:
> > > Feel free to help him prove he:
> >
> > Nay, nay and thice nay
> > I've told you before...
> >
> > The proof falls to you, to DISprove his claims.
> > And lack of evidence is not proof or disproof.
>
> Your statement is ridiculous. Using your logic I could claim that I
> alone designed the F-22 Raptor aircraft used by the USAF. This is now
> true and the burden is on you to prove that I didn't. Go ahead... prove
> that I did not design the F-22 Raptor.
If you did claim, in this NG, to have designed the F-22 Raptor, it
wouldn't matter. Would it? Whatever your motives for the claim, and
whatever truth it had, there would be no real world consequences. It
wouldn't be the first move of a lawsuit against the air force. So, if
anyone wanted to believe you, they could do so. If anyone didn't
believe you, and wanted to dispute the manner, it would really be down
to them to prove you were lying. I mean, why would you have to prove
you were telling the truth? This is a NG... an /advocacy/ NG!
You and some others are annoyed that the "COLA gang" don't take issue
with Rex about these claims. Speaking for myself (and yes, I know I'm
not in the COLA gang... or am I?), I've never seen Rex make these
claims. According to Erik (or was it DFS?), Rex made the claims on his
own website. So, if I had seen it, and wanted to dispute it, I would
do it /there/ (assuming there's a Comments facility, or a forum or
something), or maybe in private email. I wouldn't do it /here/,
because it would be irrelevant to this NG.
Maybe Rex made claims in this NG before I started reading it. And
maybe members of the COLA gang believed him. Or maybe they disbelieved
him but didn't say anything about it because they couldn't disprove him
and they knew the onus of proof would be on them.
If Rex has falsely claimed to have invented stuff, that should be
pretty easy to prove. Contact the documented inventors and ask them to
set the record straight in this NG. If you can be bothered. I
certainly can't be bothered. I mean, what would be my motivation to
start an email correspondence with a complete stranger, to discredit
someone I don't know? Because they made a harmless claim in an
advocacy NG?
The only motive there could be for such action would be character
assassination.
<snip>