Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 15th Dec 2006 21:12 UTC
GNU, GPL, Open Source "The FSF today launched a campaign with a twofold mission of exposing the harms inflicted on computer users by the new Microsoft Windows Vista and promoting free software alternatives that respect users' security and privacy rights. "Vista is an upsell masquerading as an upgrade. It is an overall regression when you look at the most important aspect of owning and using a computer: your control over what it does. Obviously MS Windows is already proprietary and very restrictive, and well worth rejecting. But the new 'features' in Vista are a Trojan Horse to smuggle in even more restrictions. We'll be focusing attention on detailing how they work, how to resist them, and why people should care", said FSF program administrator John Sullivan."
Order by: Score:
v Fanatics
by NotParker on Fri 15th Dec 2006 21:24 UTC
RE: Fanatics
by ralph on Fri 15th Dec 2006 21:27 UTC in reply to "Fanatics"
ralph Member since:
2005-07-10

You know, I have to wonder who the real fanatics are?

People who argue their point, as the FSF does (though you of course might not agree with them) or people who want to dismiss these arguments without counter arguments but simply by namecalling.

Reply Score: 5

v RE[2]: Fanatics
by NotParker on Fri 15th Dec 2006 21:30 UTC in reply to "RE: Fanatics"
RE[3]: Fanatics
by twenex on Fri 15th Dec 2006 21:35 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Fanatics"
twenex Member since:
2006-04-21

"Obviously MS Windows is already proprietary and very restrictive, and well worth rejecting."

Why aren't they then campaigning against IBM too? Oracle? Thousands of other companies making money off of proprietary software?


Hmm, could that be because OS/2, WebSphere, Lotus Notes, Smartsuite, Oracle, WordPerfect, and thousands of other products aren't installed by default on 95% of computers (unless your time and reputation are worthless enough to throw a NotParker-style hissy fit?)

Of course the FSF *do* campaign against proprietary software. All of it. It's just that no-one is in danger of being suckered with an obligatory, DRM-crippled copy of PageStream.

EDIT: Fixed a glaring inaccuracy.

Edited 2006-12-15 21:42

Reply Score: 5

v RE[4]: Fanatics
by NotParker on Fri 15th Dec 2006 21:38 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Fanatics"
RE[5]: Fanatics
by twenex on Fri 15th Dec 2006 21:40 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Fanatics"
twenex Member since:
2006-04-21

The FSF hates Microsoft and are glad to take money from corporations that sell proprietary software.

Yes, so what?

Your loathing for FOSS is greater than the FSF's loathing for proprietary software and mine for Windows combined.

Reply Score: 5

v RE[6]: Fanatics
by NotParker on Fri 15th Dec 2006 21:44 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Fanatics"
RE[7]: Fanatics
by sbergman27 on Fri 15th Dec 2006 22:04 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Fanatics"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

"""
//Your loathing for FOSS is greater than the FSF's loathing for proprietary software and mine for Windows combined.//

Nothing can top that combination.
"""

Have faith in yourself, NotParker.

Reply Score: 5

RE[5]: Fanatics
by archiesteel on Fri 15th Dec 2006 21:43 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Fanatics"
archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

Be honest. The FSF hates Microsoft and are glad to take money from corporations that sell proprietary software.

The FSF doesn't "hate" Microsoft. They have a philosophical position against proprietary software. I don't share their position (not all of it, anyway), but I do respect their right to believe in this, and will not try to demonize them just because they thing differently than I do.

Also, they routinely criticize other companies that have taken stances against FOSS, however Microsoft is the biggest, by far, and they're the ones who have the biggest impact on computing as a whole. It is therefore only natural if they are the most frequent target of FOSS activism.

I don't understand why that should be of any concern to you, however. You'll still be able to use their fine products...

Of course, there's also the chance that you work for MS, or have MS stock, which would explain why you take any criticism of MS in such a personal way...

(Incidentally, I've never heard you specifically deny that you work for MS. Food for thought...)

Reply Score: 5

RE[6]: Fanatics
by twenex on Fri 15th Dec 2006 21:45 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Fanatics"
twenex Member since:
2006-04-21

As much as I diss Microsoft and their products, I doubt they'd allow such a knucklehead to spoil the reputation of the company in such a big way, even on what is probably a relatively unknown website.

Unless the current CEO is involved.

Reply Score: 4

RE[5]: Fanatics
by glarepate on Sat 16th Dec 2006 00:08 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Fanatics"
glarepate Member since:
2006-01-04

Be honest.

You go first.

A.) It's OK to ignore the point made by the OP.

B.) You ignoring his point doesn't make him dishonest.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Fanatics
by somebody on Sat 16th Dec 2006 00:51 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Fanatics"
somebody Member since:
2005-07-07

Be honest. The FSF hates Microsoft and are glad to take money from corporations that sell proprietary software.

No,... you be honest. When did MS ever expressed any love for OSS? They called GPL as "viral", "bad", "communist"... all that from MS side.

And MS is glad to take money from OSS companies too.

Again, NotParker producing strawman argument

Reply Score: 5

RE[6]: Fanatics
by n4cer on Sat 16th Dec 2006 03:17 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Fanatics"
n4cer Member since:
2005-07-06

No,... you be honest. When did MS ever expressed any love for OSS? They called GPL as "viral", "bad", "communist"... all that from MS side.

GPL != OSS
It is viral, and caution should be taken when using if you also use proprietary code, else that code could easily become GPLed itself.

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Fanatics
by b3timmons on Sat 16th Dec 2006 04:28 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Fanatics"
b3timmons Member since:
2006-08-26

GPL != OSS
It is viral, and caution should be taken when using if you also use proprietary code, else that code could easily become GPLed itself.


Your statement is associated with lies spread by a Microsoft-funded "think tank"(*). It is debunked as Myth #7 in the following document:
http://www.totse.com/en/technology/computer_technology/whiterhino17...

In general, if you cannot pass on the rights that you receive courtesy of the GPL, then you must cease distribution until the GPLed code (which is combined with the non-free code) is replaced. More on enforcement of the GPL is here:
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/enforcing-gpl.html


(*)See a bit of the shameful nonsense that Microsoft monopoly money buys in the following link:
http://fortytwo.ch/opinion/adti

Edited 2006-12-16 04:37

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Fanatics
by twenex on Fri 15th Dec 2006 21:36 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Fanatics"
twenex Member since:
2006-04-21

But they'll take code developed by IBM programmers and integrate it into Linux won't they?

Like what? The only FSF-approved distribution is totally free.

Reply Score: 5

v RE[4]: Fanatics
by NotParker on Fri 15th Dec 2006 21:46 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Fanatics"
RE[5]: Fanatics
by twenex on Fri 15th Dec 2006 21:49 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Fanatics"
twenex Member since:
2006-04-21

The FSF aren't in charge of every single copy of Linux, dummy.

"IBM's attack on Microsoft"? This isn't the early 90s when IBM PCs were loaded with OS/2 instead of Windows 3.1

Dude, what are you on?

Reply Score: 5

v RE[6]: Fanatics
by NotParker on Fri 15th Dec 2006 21:54 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Fanatics"
RE[7]: Fanatics
by twenex on Fri 15th Dec 2006 21:57 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Fanatics"
twenex Member since:
2006-04-21

How can they promote an OS that is being supported by IBM when IBM is a strong advocate of proprietary software?

By the same reasoning by which rightwing Western governments have supported rightwing dictatorships, despite their "shortcomings" (to put it as mildly as possible), on the basis that those dictatorships were nt communist.

Viz. The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Fanatics
by ThawkTH on Fri 15th Dec 2006 22:15 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Fanatics"
ThawkTH Member since:
2005-07-06

Because if you follow the rules, ANYONE can contribute to Linux.

What, the FSF should have just dropped LINUX because IBM started following the RULES OF THE GPL and CONTRIBUTED something to BENEFIT the os and it's users?


You sir, are truly the most bizarre trollish like creature I've ever encountered.

Reply Score: 5

RE[5]: Fanatics
by archiesteel on Fri 15th Dec 2006 21:54 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Fanatics"
archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

The millions of lines of code added to Linux by IBM are free software. IBM has decided to be both a free software company, and a proprietary software company. RMS has been both critical and approving of IBM in the past; he has said their actions should be judged on a case-by-case basis:

"IBM does not have a commitment to free software. It cooperate with us part of the time." - RMS

http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/hot-topics/82287/interview-richard-stal...

Reply Score: 5

v RE[6]: Fanatics
by NotParker on Fri 15th Dec 2006 21:59 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Fanatics"
RE[7]: Fanatics
by twenex on Fri 15th Dec 2006 22:01 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Fanatics"
twenex Member since:
2006-04-21

If you open up OfficeXML to the ECMA, you are still an EVIL proprietary software vendor.

Yet another misrepresentation. (Were you born with a misrepresentation gene?) People object to the OfficeXML format because MS reserve the right to close it again.

Reply Score: 4

RE[7]: Fanatics
by archiesteel on Fri 15th Dec 2006 22:03 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Fanatics"
archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

According to everything I've read on this site, you can't be both.

Sure you can.

If you open up OfficeXML to the ECMA, you are still an EVIL proprietary software vendor.

a) Open standards aren't the same as FOSS.

b) It's not that simple in that particular case, and you know it. MS has refused to adopt ODF, even though they helped design it and they have the technological know-how to make Office be compatible with it.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Fanatics
by dylansmrjones on Fri 15th Dec 2006 22:39 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Fanatics"
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

Microsoft has released GPL'ed software too. Does that make MS a FOSS-zealot company?

Anybody - including Microsoft - can contribute with code to freedomware. And Microsoft has done that - even under the GPL ;)

MS must really be a company of real terrible GPL-zealots.

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: Fanatics
by alcibiades on Sat 16th Dec 2006 06:42 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Fanatics"
alcibiades Member since:
2005-10-12

You need to be logical to argue effectively. The FSF disapproves of some, but not all, of IBMs products and activities. Some, it approves of.

IBM is like the rest of us, ordinary, mixed and imperfect. But, getting better and with some redeeming qualities.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Facial tics
by glarepate on Sat 16th Dec 2006 00:03 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Fanatics"
glarepate Member since:
2006-01-04

But they'll take code developed by IBM programmers and integrate it into Linux won't they?

Whoops! Invalid argument! You switched positions between example and counter-example!

Is the code in Linux proprietary and restrictive? If not, why are you attempting to pass this off as a valid comparison? Are you honestly unable to tell the difference or was this a "clever" trick that just failed due to lack of care in execution?

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Facial tics
by b3timmons on Sat 16th Dec 2006 00:17 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Facial tics"
b3timmons Member since:
2006-08-26

"Whoops! Invalid argument! You switched positions between example and counter-example!

Is the code in Linux proprietary and restrictive? If not, why are you attempting to pass this off as a valid comparison? Are you honestly unable to tell the difference or was this a "clever" trick that just failed due to lack of care in execution?
"

LMAO--of course, it was a trick. However, there is something very sobering and sad about how so many "perspectives" on Forbes, ZDNet, CNet, and their properties are infested with this kind of trickery. Some of those bloggers are undoubtedly "hired guns", weaving deception every day, and Microsoft has plenty of hiring power. It seems the tool of choice is equivocation (exploiting multiple meanings), although (mercifully) rarely at the level of the master, Bill Gates.

Edited 2006-12-16 00:20

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Fanatics
by somebody on Sat 16th Dec 2006 00:41 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Fanatics"
somebody Member since:
2005-07-07

But they'll take code developed by IBM programmers and integrate it into Linux won't they?

Fanatics and hypocrites.


If it wouldn't be this part, your comment would be well worth to mod up.

But as always you can't help your self but to end with non-sense. Actually, you're only making a fool out of you.

Why?

If source code will be in question (IBM provides quite a lot of OSS projects), then it means it is open source, so why not include it in linux? Which would invalidate your claim from one side. One company can freely provide FOSS projects and closed source projects. There is no black&white ban here.

But if this would be closed source project as you were saying in the first part of the comment then it has exactly 0% chance of integration into linux. It can't be even distributed with linux. And this invalidates your comment from the other side.

And why, oh why do you need to specify your hypocrites, fanatics, zealots, cult, etc. Have you looked in the mirror lately?

Even I don't agree with this article if I look at it from global perspective in many aspects (average user just doesn't care about things FSF is preaching in this article). Well, looking it from FSF side I have to agree with them (FSF is showing that Vista is providing more freedom lock down features, and FSF is fighting the world to set software free, so yes, they are true to them selves).

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Fanatics
by eMagius on Sat 16th Dec 2006 01:26 UTC in reply to "RE: Fanatics"
eMagius Member since:
2005-07-06

People who argue their point, as the FSF does

Unfortunately, the FSF's "arguments" amount solely to fear-mongering and name calling. They aren't able to name specifics, becuase they're just blatantly wrong. The FSF is spreading nothing but FUD--the very same FUD that gets so often is spread here--about additional restrictions in Vista.

The fact of the matter is that there are no additional restrictions on Vista as compared to XP (which hasn't been a problem for anyone).
The only changes in Vista with regards to DRM are support for HDCP Blu-Ray/HD-DVD media (which doesn't play on other OSes at all) and support for BitLocker drive-level encryption (which is available for enterprise customers to protect their own data).

Everything else is the FSF predicting doomsday scenarios ("Microsoft will use Windows update to hold your files hostage!"). They've done this before, as have the standard Stallmanites here on OSNews (those who get modded up to +5 for claiming that WMP doesn't support MP3s and those who mod them up). Every time they've been wrong.

It's time to put a stop to the FSF's crusade of lies. Linus stood up to their attempts to destroy the Linux kernel just days ago. We need to to take a stand against their warmongering and campaign of fear.

Reply Score: 5

RE[3]: Fanatics
by b3timmons on Sat 16th Dec 2006 02:50 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Fanatics"
b3timmons Member since:
2006-08-26

"It's time to put a stop to the FSF's crusade of lies. Linus stood up to their attempts to destroy the Linux kernel just days ago. We need to to take a stand against their warmongering and campaign of fear."

Well, those "attempts to destroy the Linux kernel" came from within the kernel developers, not the FSF as you might have hoped. (I guess Linus needed to convince the kernel developers not to destroy what they develop.) In any case, name one lie from the FSF.

In the bigger picture, the FSF boils down to the advocacy of four freedoms:
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html

It is an ethical position that they defend, hence the opposition to things that conflict with this position such as DRM and Vista. Any credible and useful attack against the FSF is an attack against that ethical position.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Fanatics
by dylansmrjones on Sat 16th Dec 2006 10:33 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Fanatics"
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

The fact of the matter is that there are no additional restrictions on Vista as compared to XP (which hasn't been a problem for anyone).

Twice wrong. Vista has more restrictions license wise than XP, and the restrictions in XP has pissed of many users.

The FSF hasn't attempted to destroy the Linux kernel. Some developers decided they wanted to change the kernel, so their code didn't work with proprietary modules after a while. But that wasn't from FSF, but from the developers.

I agree with Linus that it would be unwise step to make proprietary modules not work with the kernel (I also think the GPL was the wrong choice for the kernel, considering the intention with the kernel). However, it doesn't make the situation better here at OSN to have MS-zealots as you walking around. You cannot consider anything from a pragmatic view. You always worship MS and one can always find you bashing *BSD, Linux and FLOSS in general.

It makes it difficult for some to appreciate your valid points, when you do have some.

Reply Score: 5

RE[4]: Fanatics
by eMagius on Sat 16th Dec 2006 20:30 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Fanatics"
eMagius Member since:
2005-07-06

And as usual, you refuse to provide any evidence to back up your (and the FSF's) accusations. There is not one iota of proof for the claim that Vista is any more encumbered by DRM than XP.

If you do have evidence (not debunked hearsay, but actual solid and factual information), please feel free to provide it. I'll take back my complaints.

You cannot consider anything from a pragmatic view. You always worship MS and one can always find you bashing *BSD, Linux and FLOSS in general.

I'd also like you to provide a single link to a comment where I have ever bashed *BSD in particular or OSS in general. Feel free to dig through OpenBSD mailing list archives to see that I've been a BSD user for the better part of a decade. Richard Stallman and his puppet organization are not the gods of open source, and I don't feel any need to pull my punches when it comes to them. Pragmatism is my middle name.

Reply Score: 4

RE[5]: Fanatics
by mcmv200i on Sun 17th Dec 2006 00:03 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Fanatics"
mcmv200i Member since:
2006-12-14

Richard Stallman and his puppet organization are not the gods of open source.

Richard Stallmann is indeed not the god of open source (which he does not want to be!!!) nor the god of free software (which he might wants to be ;) . But, I think, we should not forget that is unlikely that somethings like FLOSS and a FLOSS community would exist in this way without the early contributions of Richard Stallmann.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Fanatics
by tomcat on Sat 16th Dec 2006 01:53 UTC in reply to "RE: Fanatics"
tomcat Member since:
2006-01-06

F/OSS is a religion, and you can't have a religion without a devil. Microsoft is the FSF's devil. And, every so often, they attempt to mobilize their zealots by waving red meat at them. Not surprisingly, most of their so-called "arguments" amount to nothing but FUD -- and you nailed it: Vista is no more restrictive than XP, people that have tried it genuinely like it (that's gotta scare the FSF), and it's reduced any potential value proposition from competing operating system, due to improved security and stability.

My advice to the FSF: Learn to co-exist with closed source software, rather than thinking of your offerings as a "all or nothing" proposition. Some of us use BOTH open and closed source software, and we don't appreciate being told that one side or the other is essentially evil. It only makes you look like a bunch of twelve-year olds. Grow up. Move out of your parents' basements.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Fanatics
by ThawkTH on Sat 16th Dec 2006 14:50 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Fanatics"
ThawkTH Member since:
2005-07-06

F/OSS is a philosophy.

You see, you make one critical mistake - you claim that religion needs a devil.

Religion needs a God, a Deity as well. Perhaps the GPL is the Bible to SOME, and maybe RMS and the like are saints/prophets - but...Unless you'd claim Linux is somehow God to the FOSS community (which alienates more than a few users/developers/supporters)your point is somewhat moot.

Not to mention, not all of us feel proprietary=evil. Do I think drm and trusted computing can be compared pretty easily with evil? Yeah. identified as such? Usually.

That said, I love my apple and that's, well, mighty proprietary.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Fanatics
by walterbyrd on Sat 16th Dec 2006 16:03 UTC in reply to "RE: Fanatics"
walterbyrd Member since:
2005-12-31

Maybe you should attakc the arguement, instead of the person. Your post amounts nothing but name calling.

Saying the FSF is wrong, because they are, in your opion, "fanatics" has you doing exactly what you are accusing the FSF of doing.

"people who want to dismiss these arguments without counter arguments but simply by namecalling."

Since you did not point out any specific arguements, that is exactly what *you* are doing.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Fanatics
by twenex on Sat 16th Dec 2006 16:06 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Fanatics"
twenex Member since:
2006-04-21

Maybe you should attakc the arguement, instead of the person. Your post amounts nothing but name calling.

Maybe you've posted in reply to the wrong person. I don't get from the OP that he is attacking anyone.

Saying the FSF is wrong, because they are, in your opion, "fanatics" has you doing exactly what you are accusing the FSF of doing.

Again, sounds like your post is misdirected.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Fanatics
by Trojan on Sat 16th Dec 2006 16:33 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Fanatics"
Trojan Member since:
2006-12-16

They made an argument? Perhaps you and the FSF need to purchase some materials such as "A Rulebook for Arguments" ISBN: 0872205525. It might come in handy next time you want to question why someone isn't developing counter arguments. I'll point out the obvious in that the FSF has not put a single premise into developing its conclusions. The only logical way to argue with them then is to not argue at all. They have made no attempt to put forth any evidence of their claims. They are spreading FUD.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Fanatics
by raver31 on Sat 16th Dec 2006 06:04 UTC in reply to "Fanatics"
raver31 Member since:
2005-07-06

Yes, yes they are.

Although, some people see FOSS and immediatly think of people who want to destroy Microsoft.

Thats not what they are about.

FOSS is not about them giving software away while evil proprietary companies sell you the goods...

It is the locked down, hidden, do not disassemble part of the proprietary world they are fighting against.

When I release my new media player, it will be FOSS, it will be free for Linux and BSD users, but Windows and OSX users will be charged $39.99.

Note, although Windows and OSX users will have to pay, the software is still FOSS.

One concept most Windows users cannot get their head around is the FREE part of Free Open Source Software. It is FREE in that you can take my media player and alter it, even rerelease it yourself after you modify it, I dont care. I got my code out there.

Proprietary code will not allow that. I will continue to own the code, and in fact you cannot see what I have in there. So if I decide to stick a trojan in there, so what ? You clicked OK when you installed it, and you cannot have a look at the source to check what I done.


See.... that is the difference, and if that makes me a fanatic, then so be it.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Fanatics
by Havin_it on Sat 16th Dec 2006 14:14 UTC in reply to "RE: Fanatics"
Havin_it Member since:
2006-03-10

When I release my new media player, it will be FOSS, it will be free for Linux and BSD users, but Windows and OSX users will be charged $39.99.

'mkay... Of course, you will have to offer the source free of charge, so someone will build the source for Windows/OSX, and (again because of the freedom you've accorded them) can then distribute it for free.

Or will your homebrew FOSS license include a clause stating "You may not build this code on Windows or Mac OS unless you give me some cash, because proprietary OSes are teh bad..." -- doesn't sound very 'libre' to me :/

Edited 2006-12-16 14:16

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Fanatics
by raver31 on Sun 17th Dec 2006 08:56 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Fanatics"
raver31 Member since:
2005-07-06

Of course the source code gets released with the Windows and OSX versions too.

However, there will be no such clause, people can rebuild and release it for free if they want.

I will release the code over all platforms, it is just that I will charge Windows and OSX users. No reason for this, just that they are used to paying for stuff.....

Saying that, I wonder how long before I see it on p2p networks hahaha

Reply Score: 2

Hm
by merkoth on Fri 15th Dec 2006 21:29 UTC
merkoth
Member since:
2006-09-22

My only question is how is this information going to get inside Joe User's head? I'm afraid that most people won't notice this canpaign and, even if they find this information, most of them won't care at all.

I'm all for this kind of educational campaigns though, hope this one works :-)

(And here comes NotParker for another -5 session)

Edit: Damn, he beat me to it.

Edited 2006-12-15 21:29

Reply Score: 5

Reaching Joe User -- A Recent Anecdote
by b3timmons on Fri 15th Dec 2006 22:33 UTC in reply to "Hm"
b3timmons Member since:
2006-08-26

"My only question is how is this information going to get inside Joe User's head? I'm afraid that most people won't notice this canpaign and, even if they find this information, most of them won't care at all."

One way to Joe User is from his buddy who knows something about computers. My wife, for example, does not care if hamsters are what run a computer, but after years of happily using GNU/Linux with few skills, she finally appreciated yesterday what freedom means to her.

The way I brought it up was discussing Gnash, the GNU Flash Player. I pointed out how Flash movies can involve all kinds of security compromises and how media companies can exploit this at the expense of the user. I explained to her how Gnash will allow the option of blacklists and whitelists and what those are.

Finally, she made a connection between free software and transparency in the media, and then she complained to me about why it took so many years for me to explain to her why free software is important -- as if I cheated her by not letting her in on a cool secret.

I should also add that she was in a way prepared to here about Gnash, since she recently saw a documentary ("The Corporation") on corporate corruption, including the Fox News scandal over tainted milk.

So one of the more promising routes to Joe User is pointing out how free software adds to the checks and balances on powerful corporate and governmental interests.

Reply Score: 5

seems like an uphill battle...
by jtrapp on Fri 15th Dec 2006 21:30 UTC
jtrapp
Member since:
2005-07-06

I don't think folks are gonna line up waiting to get an upgrade copy of Vista--sure some will, but the majority won't.
They will adopt Vista when they buy a new computer. You can educate users till they turn blue, but if you can't buy a GNU/Linux PC at Fry's, Best Buy, CompUSA, and the like; then people just are not gonna change. This energy might be better spent lobbying the OEMs.

Reply Score: 5

RE: seems like an uphill battle...
by twenex on Fri 15th Dec 2006 21:37 UTC in reply to "seems like an uphill battle..."
twenex Member since:
2006-04-21

Well spotted.

Reply Score: 3

RE: seems like an uphill battle...
by sailorfej on Sat 16th Dec 2006 00:50 UTC in reply to "seems like an uphill battle..."
sailorfej Member since:
2006-12-16

Excellent point that most of the more computer saavy types, advocating opensource systems, should remember.

To most users a computer is a computer. They don't know the what an operating system is, much less which one they are using.

Unless OEMs start offering alternatives to customers, then the regular user will never use anything but Microsoft, and even then they will won't buy it because it is opensource versus microsoft, they will only buy it, if it is perceived to be better in a very subjective way, by a person who know's nothing about the technical or philosophical differences.

Reply Score: 3

RE: seems like an uphill battle...
by spikeb on Sat 16th Dec 2006 07:56 UTC in reply to "seems like an uphill battle..."
spikeb Member since:
2006-01-18

it will help a little bit. but you're right, we should also lobby OEMs

Reply Score: 1

v Choice
by NotParker on Fri 15th Dec 2006 21:34 UTC
RE: Choice
by archiesteel on Fri 15th Dec 2006 21:37 UTC in reply to "Choice"
archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

Most people don't have a choice to buy Windows, as it comes pre-installed on most computers. Trying to exercise "choice" and not get Windows can prove to be a difficult task.

That said, the FSF doesn't seek to deprive anyone from the freedom of choosing whatever OS they want. Claiming that they do is lying, pure and simple.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Choice
by twenex on Fri 15th Dec 2006 21:39 UTC in reply to "RE: Choice"
twenex Member since:
2006-04-21

Where are you located?

In the US, EmperorLinux offer Linux laptops; in the UK, LinuxEmporium sell them. (Look under "Hardware").

Not an employee of either company.

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: Choice
by archiesteel on Fri 15th Dec 2006 21:48 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Choice"
archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

Yes, there are companies offering Linux pre-installed, but their market penetration is negligible. Wal-Mart did offer Linux, but only on-line.

What I'd like to see is dedicated Linux machines, like Macs, sold at Best Buy and Future Shop...that'd be swell, even if it was just one model.

Reply Score: 5

RE[4]: Choice
by twenex on Fri 15th Dec 2006 21:52 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Choice"
twenex Member since:
2006-04-21

Yes, there are companies offering Linux pre-installed, but their market penetration is negligible. Wal-Mart did offer Linux, but only on-line.

All true. I wasn't attempting to disprove that the market is almost entirely saturated with Windows; my intention was simply to point you towards some companies that, thank God, do sell laptops with Linux.

What I'd like to see is dedicated Linux machines, like Macs, sold at Best Buy and Future Shop...that'd be swell, even if it was just one model.

It certainly would.

Reply Score: 4

v RE[2]: Choice
by NotParker on Fri 15th Dec 2006 21:42 UTC in reply to "RE: Choice"
RE[3]: Choice
by archiesteel on Fri 15th Dec 2006 21:46 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Choice"
archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

Dell sells PC's with Linux. As does HP.

Notice how I said that most people don't have a choice as Windows comes pre-installed on most computers? Your counter-argument would make sense if I had said "all", but I didn't.

The truth is that most people don't even know they have a choice, due to Microsoft's monopolistic practices. The only alternative people know about is Apple, and fortunately Mac sales are up.

The FSF is against Microsoft and against people choosing to run Windows.

Not as such. They have a philosophical opposition against proprietary software. I do not share their position but I respect it, and so should you. The lack of respect you display towards those who disagree with you is the reason why so many people consider you a troll.

Reply Score: 5

v RE[4]: Choice
by NotParker on Fri 15th Dec 2006 21:48 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Choice"
RE[5]: Choice
by cmize on Fri 15th Dec 2006 21:53 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Choice"
cmize Member since:
2006-09-17

And it sounds like you have nothing but contempt for people who choose computers without Windows on them.

Edited 2006-12-15 21:54

Reply Score: 5

RE[5]: Choice
by archiesteel on Fri 15th Dec 2006 21:58 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Choice"
archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

Of course they do. Try and tell me no one in the United States has ever seen an Apple computer ad in the last 20 years.

Did you even read my post? I made a specific mention of Apple. That said, choosing Mac as an OS still means buying Apple hardware, so it's not a complete adequate alternative.

You have nothing but contempt for people who choose computers with Windows on them.

False. I don't care what people choose to run, or what they feel they are forced to run because they're not aware of alternatives on generic hardware.

Stop trying to put words into my mouth. It's dishonest, and very annoying.

Reply Score: 5

v RE[6]: Choice
by NotParker on Fri 15th Dec 2006 22:02 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Choice"
RE[7]: Choice
by archiesteel on Fri 15th Dec 2006 22:05 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Choice"
archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

Its not the alternative you would prefer. But its been an alternative available to everyone for 20 years.

I have nothing against Mac OS. In fact, I'm considering adding a Mac to my mixed home network (which already has Windows and Linux PCs).

However, it is *not* an alternative for generic PC hardware. Mac OSX only runs on Macs.

Reply Score: 5

RE[4]: Choice
by alcibiades on Sat 16th Dec 2006 10:05 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Choice"
alcibiades Member since:
2005-10-12

Problem is, Macs are not materially better in terms of proprietary lockin. Different, yes, better, no. Yes, you can install your retail copy of OSX without activation, and on more than one machine. No, you can't get a retail copy of OSX for MacIntel. No, you can't install any MacOS version on non-Apple hardware without an awful lot of work. And then there's the whole iTunes/iPod lockins.

So, is it encouraging that Mac sales are up? Not really. The problem is cola drinks. If Pepsi sales rise at the expense of Coke, its not encouraging in the least.

Reply Score: 2

v RE[3]: Choice
by ronaldst on Fri 15th Dec 2006 22:27 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Choice"
RE[4]: Choice
by anda_skoa on Fri 15th Dec 2006 22:32 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Choice"
anda_skoa Member since:
2005-07-07

Just like the Taliban.

This is a new variant of Godwin's law, isn't it?

Reply Score: 5

v RE[5]: Choice
by ronaldst on Fri 15th Dec 2006 22:36 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Choice"
RE[6]: Choice
by anda_skoa on Fri 15th Dec 2006 22:47 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Choice"
anda_skoa Member since:
2005-07-07

I was gonna use the Ford and black colour quote but the Taliban is more recent and better suited to describes the FSF's little war.

I recommend using the Fors and black colour quote instead.

Referencing any menacing regime is never appropriate for conflicts where nobody is actually harmed.

Regimes like the Nazis or the Taliban should be remembered as what the were, not made into some nice little insult word.

Reply Score: 2

v RE[7]: Choice
by ronaldst on Fri 15th Dec 2006 23:06 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Choice"
RE[3]: Choice
by B. Janssen on Sat 16th Dec 2006 11:28 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Choice"
B. Janssen Member since:
2006-10-11

NotParker: The FSF is against Microsoft and against people choosing to run Windows.

Words fail me. Either you are so not getting what the FSF is about or you are really a troll.

The FSF is against proprietary software and for privacy and fair use. The FSF educates or campaigns for a dozen or more pro-privacy, pro-fair use issues, Microsoft and their new Vista OS are just especially visible. Microsoft is a well known player in the market and is against privacy and fair use and for proprietary software. (This is a contraction for brevities sake.)
The FSF and MS naturally are adversaries, that's the way of marketplaces of ideas.

Saying that the FSF is against people or people's choices is vexing. They campaign to inform you about some points you might want to consider in your next buying decision, but clearly the choice is yours. They are as much against people and their choices as consumer protection is against people and their choices.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Choice
by twenex on Fri 15th Dec 2006 21:38 UTC in reply to "Choice"
twenex Member since:
2006-04-21

The FSF has already stolen that freedom.

I wasn't aware GnewSense was being installed on 95% of computers.

More's the pity.

Reply Score: 5

RE: Choice
by dylansmrjones on Fri 15th Dec 2006 22:42 UTC in reply to "Choice"
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

FSF hasn't stolen that freedom.

I run Windows 2003 Server, gentoo linux 2006.1, DesktopBSD, SkyOS and Syllable.

This is written running Windows 2003 Server. FSF has stolen any freedom.

Reply Score: 2

I wondered what happened to my computer!!!
by glarepate on Sat 16th Dec 2006 00:53 UTC in reply to "Choice"
glarepate Member since:
2006-01-04

Like the freedom to choose which OS to run?

The FSF has already stolen that freedom.


Awwwwww, poor Notsy!

FSF stole your copy of 'Doze and made you run Nexenta? GNU/FreeBSD? GNU/HURD? Which choice was forced on you? We know it couldn't have been GNU/Torvaldix!

Did it hurt? A lot? Did you secretly like it and are now compelled to speak out against it? Maybe I'm beginning to understand why you are so angry. Well, OK, I'm not.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Choice
by melkor on Sat 16th Dec 2006 05:05 UTC in reply to "Choice"
melkor Member since:
2006-12-16

I'm not sure how you have come to the conclusion that the FSF has already stolen the freedom of choice on what operating system to use. Could you please enlighten me exactly how this has happened?

The facts of the matter are that Microsoft Windows is pretty much the only known 'computer software' to the average person, and that is due to an illegal monopoly with OEM manufacturers. I once tried to ask Acer Australia about buying a laptop without Windows pre-loaded, as I didn't need it as I used GNU/Linux (at the time), and do you know what I was told? I was told that their contract with Microsoft forbid them to sell PCs without an operating system. And they only supported Microsoft Windows on their laptops (at this point of time), because they felt that there was no need for a laptop being sold with alternative operating systems such as GNU/Linux.

Now this logic, doesn't fool me. Just as many people (if not more) use GNU/Linux as their desktop these days, as use Apple's OS X. I see that Microsoft makes Microsoft Office for OS X, but not GNU/Linux or FreeBSD. Why? They argue that there's no demand for it. But hang on, they're making a version for OS X, an operating system with at least as much, if not less users globablly.

The sad thing is, that most modern governments, especially the current US government buy this codwallops hook, line and sinker. They care more about making money for their economy, than they do about making sure that the laws apply equally to everyone, individuals and very rich corporations.

I've said it before, and I'll keep saying it, if the DOJ had actually punished Microsoft, the right way to have done it would have been to force Microsoft to port Microsoft Office, Microsoft MSN Messenger and Microsoft Windows Media Player to the GNU/Linux platforms. If the government was serious, it would ban software patents, since they are plainly mathemtical in nature, and mathematics cannot be patented. The problems are so obvious, and so easy to solve, but the thing is, big business doesn't want to fix the problem. They don't want to empower the individual.

I'll further add my suspicions to this - Microsoft got out of a lot of trouble by adding an illegal backdoor to their operating system, for government services. NotParker, can you tell me if this is freedom? I know you will argue that what I've said (at least in the last paragaph) is heresay, and yes, you might be right. But then, I could be right as well (and I believe that I'm more than likely right, it's just that Microsoft and the US government would not want the public to know about it).

Anyways, your anti FSF and GNU/Linux rants are amusing. I can always do with a good laugh, so I hope the osnews.com staff don't ban you :-) And, furthermore, not everything that you say is bad, you do make some very good comments from time to time.

Dave

PS Thom - your comment about osnews.com not banning members is bollocks. And I'd argue that those that have been banned have not been 'impolite' as you so put it. Furthermore, osnews doesn't appear to even have the courtesy of answering emails on said banned accounts it seems, highly rude. If you want to discuss this further, email me off list.

edit: typos

Edited 2006-12-16 05:13

Reply Score: 3

v RE[2]: Choice
by NotParker on Sat 16th Dec 2006 06:02 UTC in reply to "RE: Choice"
RE[3]: Choice
by archiesteel on Sat 16th Dec 2006 07:25 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Choice"
archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

About 10% actually. Apple is between 3% and 4% and Linux is around .36%.

No, actually it's about the same, between 3 and 6% for Linux, according to the latest market share data.

The .36% number you suggest is not a market share figure. It is derived from web stats, which cannot identify the number of unique visitors and therefore are useless to determine market share. Furthermore, there are many factors affecting web statistics (clientele bias, caching issues, user agent masquerading, AOL user oversampling, broadband bias, etc.) and therefore their accuracy is approximative at best - if they could be used to determine market share in the first place, which they can't.

IDC's research gave 3% in january 2005. There's no reason to believe it has decreased since then.

So why can I buy a D*** with Linux on it?

NotParker, stop being such a D***.

Why does D*** sell so few of their computers with Linux on them?

Virtually no marketing push behind it. Compare it to the marketing push behind Windows...it's really not all that complicated.

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: Choice
by melkor on Sat 16th Dec 2006 11:05 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Choice"
melkor Member since:
2006-12-16

OK, firstly, Linux isn't ".36%" of the global desktop market. We both know that, so please don't tell fibs.

Dell? Sure, you can buy a Dell with Linux on it *now*. But a few years ago? Nope. And, I seem to remember that Dell took action against Microsoft in the DOJ case. Why? Cos of certain clauses in Microsoft's OEM Windows contracts - if you sell any other operating system, you don't get discounts on Microsoft Windows for your OEM products. Do a bit of research, and you'll indeed see that I'm right.

Linux's problem (and bonus as well I might add) is that it's basically splintered. For Linux to get mainstream support several things will need to happen:

1. Become much easier to use. I know the above average, willing computer user can use Linux successfully these days. Your average Joe Blow would be lost though. Yes, I've heard the stories "I installed it for grandman and she loves it". Until something goes wrong. Leave her to her own devices and she'll have no idea how to fix it, so she calls her loving son/nephew who installed it and gets him to help her fix the problem. When Granma can fix it, it'll be user friendly for the masses. That's what counts.

2. Much better OEM hardware driver support. I know the Linux kernel is pretty damn good, much better than the Windows kernel at supporting hardware devices, but there's still a long way to go.

3. Popular software such as Office and Photoshop and a certain CAD program MUST be ported to the Linux platform. Maybe not so much Office, but the other two definitely. In fact, throw in accounting software - either Quicken or MYOB to the list now that I think of it.

4. The number of distributions must dwindle down dramatically. It is a strong point, because if encourages competition, but it does splinter the Linux development I feel.

5. The number of Desktops must be dwindled down to one. Same reason as point 4.

6. Package management system must be graphical and fool proof, with a limited number of quality packages, not the 15,000 plus, where most of them are far below release quality. Oh, and again, the package management system must be dwindled down to 1, same reasons as point 4.

When that happens, you'll suddenly see many OEM hardware manufacturers dropping Microsoft Windows like hot cakes and looking seriously at Linux.

Oh, and by the way, Dell is ONLY one PC OEM hardware manufacturer. Dell doesn't sell many Linux pre-loaded PCs, simply because the average person doesn't know alternatives exist. Even the press doesn't get it right. You see an article in the paper, saying "a new virus was released today and will affect millions of computers worldwide". What they don't say is that it's ONLY Microsoft Windows based PCs. Macs don't have problems. BSD and Linux based systems don't have problems. Only Windows. Does that tell you something? Money makes money my friend, and Microsoft has a lot of money, and with that money it buys not only politicians, but the media.

These are what I consider the reasons why Linux isn't selling more on OEM PC hardware manufacturer's PCs. There are other reaons, but they are minor.

Dave

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Choice
by h3rman on Sat 16th Dec 2006 14:56 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Choice"
h3rman Member since:
2006-08-09

For Linux to get mainstream support several things will need to happen:

1. Become much easier to use.

Easier than Linspire, Suse, Mepis or Xandros? Like, letting inadvertent users be su - all the time? Computers are complex machines, and a tiny little learning is crucial for Windows users too, to be productive. I got confused myself trying to install a simple .dmg in OS X (being used to Yum, YaST, Synaptic). "So, where do I drag this icon? Or do I have to click it?" Nobody tells you, since it's supposed to be "intuitive".
And Finder bugged me too (that's fine now).

2. Much better OEM hardware driver support.

"Much" is an exaggeration. Call Theo.

3. Popular software such as Office and Photoshop and a certain CAD program MUST be ported to the Linux platform. Maybe not so much Office, but the other two definitely. In fact, throw in accounting software - either Quicken or MYOB to the list now that I think of it.

Photoshop would be nice. Does Adobe have any special deals with Microsoft? All these e-mails sent to them by Linux users must bug them by now. ;)

4. The number of distributions must dwindle down dramatically.

And the number of car, toaster, mobile phone, PC, chili sauce, etc. brands too? That's "confusing" too.

5. The number of Desktops must be dwindled down to one. Same reason as point 4.

Unrealistic. The *Buntus, Freespire, Mepis, etc. are already doing their best to have only one desktop per 'distro'. No way Gnome and KDE will merge by force. And who could live without Gnome vs. KDE flames?

6. Package management system must be graphical and fool proof, with a limited number of quality packages, not the 15,000 plus, where most of them are far below release quality. Oh, and again, the package management system must be dwindled down to 1, same reasons as point 4.

Package management depends on the distribution. Who can get confused? Normal distributions have only one package manager. Usually graphical. The number of packages is irrelevant; package description could be better, though.
Package quality is always vital. However, it's a trade off. Latest and greatest vs. stability. Unless someone pays developers to do the dull work of intensive testing, sloppy packaging will not be eradicated. For well-tested packages, take something like CentOS or Debian Stable. New installer, easy for anyone.

Bug reports made easy for the lazy, that's a very important thing, I'd say. I saw Edgy Eft worked on that.

When that happens, you'll suddenly see many OEM hardware manufacturers dropping Microsoft Windows like hot cakes and looking seriously at Linux.

It's all about the margins, in the end. And don't underestimate how conservative and risk-avoiding major corporations can be.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Choice
by spikeb on Sat 16th Dec 2006 07:57 UTC in reply to "Choice"
spikeb Member since:
2006-01-18

How? Free Software even runs on Proprietary OSes

Reply Score: 1

NotParker has got to go
by ralph on Fri 15th Dec 2006 21:42 UTC
ralph
Member since:
2005-07-10

Mod me off topic or mod me down for a perceived personal attack, but I'll simply have to say this now.

If Osnews wants to be anything resembling a decent newssite where actual discussions can take place, trolls like NotParker have to be taken care of.

Otherwise they'll dominate every last discussion with their stupid trolling and make any reasonable conversation impossible.

Reply Score: 5

RE: NotParker has got to go
by twenex on Fri 15th Dec 2006 21:47 UTC in reply to "NotParker has got to go"
twenex Member since:
2006-04-21

Yessir! I agree 200%

Reply Score: 5

v RE: NotParker has got to go
by NotParker on Fri 15th Dec 2006 21:51 UTC in reply to "NotParker has got to go"
RE[2]: NotParker has got to go
by ralph on Fri 15th Dec 2006 21:55 UTC in reply to "RE: NotParker has got to go"
ralph Member since:
2005-07-10

No dissent allowed.
Trolling != dissent

See, the fanaticism is spreading.
No, it's not spreading, I'm simply an undercover FSF agent secretly financed by IBM to bring down MS and hunt down its supporters...

Edited 2006-12-15 21:57

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: NotParker has got to go
by twenex on Fri 15th Dec 2006 21:59 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: NotParker has got to go"
twenex Member since:
2006-04-21

No, it's not spreading, I'm simply an undercover FSF agent secretly financed by IBM to bring down MS and hunt down its supporters...

Hahaha!

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: NotParker has got to go
by dylansmrjones on Fri 15th Dec 2006 22:44 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: NotParker has got to go"
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

Damn!

I just lost a wager there :p

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: NotParker has got to go
by justin.68 on Sat 16th Dec 2006 13:33 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: NotParker has got to go"
justin.68 Member since:
2006-09-16

Can I work for you, guys?

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: NotParker has got to go
by merkoth on Fri 15th Dec 2006 22:01 UTC in reply to "RE: NotParker has got to go"
merkoth Member since:
2006-09-22

The problem is, you're not dissenting, you're just insulting people and spreading as many bullshit you can to as many FOSS projects you can. That, in my country, is called "a troll". And that, again in my country, isn't called "dissenting".

Man, I don't like saying this, but I'd like to beat the crap out of you. I hope the world can forgive me for my lack of manners.

Now, please Thom, or whoever is in charge of the website backend: Please , please add the option to ignore certain users. This guy completely destroys the reading pleasure.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: NotParker has got to go
by twenex on Fri 15th Dec 2006 22:05 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: NotParker has got to go"
twenex Member since:
2006-04-21

but I'd like to beat the crap out of you.

Join the back of the queue, please ;-)

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: NotParker has got to go
by archiesteel on Fri 15th Dec 2006 22:07 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: NotParker has got to go"
archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

Man, I don't like saying this, but I'd like to beat the crap out of you.

Please don't give him a new topic to whine about...

Seriously, folks, we should start taking up Thom's advice and ignoring him, while modding down his off-topic and/or abusive posts. He'll eventually tire and leave if we don't pay any attention to him. That's how trolls are. They crave attention more than anything else.

Reply Score: 4

Buffalo Soldier Member since:
2005-07-06

Please don't give him a new topic to whine about...

Seriously, folks, we should start taking up Thom's advice and ignoring him, while modding down his off-topic and/or abusive posts. He'll eventually tire and leave if we don't pay any attention to him. That's how trolls are. They crave attention more than anything else.


I agree this is the best thing to do. Mod him down and then totally ignore him.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: NotParker has got to go
by trenchsol on Sat 16th Dec 2006 00:41 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: NotParker has got to go"
trenchsol Member since:
2006-12-07

you're just insulting people and spreading as many bullshit you can to as many FOSS projects you can

FSF is doing exactly the same thing to Microsoft. So FSF are trolls.

Note that I am not Microsoft advocate. I am not using their products at all.

DG

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: NotParker has got to go
by b3timmons on Sat 16th Dec 2006 01:02 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: NotParker has got to go"
b3timmons Member since:
2006-08-26

"FSF is doing exactly the same thing to Microsoft. So FSF are trolls."

What! A charity is insulting and spreading BS against a corporate monopoly? How will that company ever survive?

Seriously, dude, put up or shut up: give examples of insults or BS. If what you say is genuinely unfair to Microsoft, the FSF will hear about it inevitably. Otherwise, your unsupported statements are just sound and fury, signifying nothing.

Calm down and look at the big picture and some history. If the negativity from the FSF were unjustified, no one would care, and Microsoft would have nothing to worry about. However, you will have to accept the fact that Microsoft is not stupid. Many years ago they identified their greatest threat: the freedom to users as promoted by GPL-licensed software.

Why not just ignore this topic if it infuriates you so much?

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: NotParker has got to go
by trenchsol on Sat 16th Dec 2006 01:34 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: NotParker has got to go"
trenchsol Member since:
2006-12-07

BS found at http://badvista.fsf.org/, because you asked for it.

1. The success of the free software movement and of campaigns against Digital Restrictions Management (DRM)

Anti-DRM campaign was not a success. It was a fiasco. No one cared to listen. Some activists even had troubles with police.


2. The site author(s) assume that specific GNU/FSF values are universal, while they are not. Majority of us don't see anything wrong about proprietary software.
We don't see DRM itself as evil. Yes it can be misused, but everyhing else could be misused too.

The bottom line is that the site reflects the opinion of the minority, and still pretends as if it speaks for the majority. 95 - 99% percent of the people would not even understand what is it about.

3. Windows Vista might not be the best piece of software, but so what. Microsoft did the best they could during five years. No one is forced to use it, because there is an alternative for everything. I know that because I use Microsoft software only in rre occasions.

DG

Reply Score: 4

RE[6]: NotParker has got to go
by b3timmons on Sat 16th Dec 2006 02:13 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: NotParker has got to go"
b3timmons Member since:
2006-08-26

"1. The success of the free software movement and of campaigns against Digital Restrictions Management (DRM)

Anti-DRM campaign was not a success. It was a fiasco. No one cared to listen. Some activists even had troubles with police.
"

A fiasco? How do you know? I know it created a bit of media attention, which probably was a big part of the intent, and therefore made it a success, especially compared to doing nothing.

"The site author(s) assume that specific GNU/FSF values are universal, while they are not."

Assuming something wrong is not BS, that is, not fake. A wrong assumption is just a mistake. However, I will believe it is wrong only when it is shown to me what you claim the values are, so I do not yet agree with you about any incorrect assumption.

"The bottom line is that the site reflects the opinion of the minority, and still pretends as if it speaks for the majority. "

Nonsense. The site invites people to consider what it has to say. For those who want to know more, it suggests further actions. Others are free to ignore it. Do you not realize how many websites fit this model?

"3. Windows Vista might not be the best piece of software, but so what. Microsoft did the best they could during five years. No one is forced to use it, because there is an alternative for everything. I know that because I use Microsoft software only in rre occasions."

How do you know they did the best they could? I think few informed people believe that. If I buy a new laptop in February, chances Vista is forced upon me. There are many complaints about lack of choice due to OEM preloading, so I have trouble believing you.

You have not shown any fakeness or BS yet. In any case, the FSF always want people to question things. Perhaps those who never feel the need to ask questions ought to avoid the FSF.

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: NotParker has got to go
by trenchsol on Sat 16th Dec 2006 20:23 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: NotParker has got to go"
trenchsol Member since:
2006-12-07

A fiasco? How do you know?

I've read a NewsForge article. They are supposed to be pro-FSF, aren't they.

I do not yet agree with you about any incorrect assumption.

You don't have to. You have asked a question, and that was the answer. No one said that you have to like it.

I will believe it is wrong only when it is shown to me what you claim the values are

You don't have to believe anything. My values are not your problem. The point is that almost everyone uses computer theese days, and almost nobody care about FSF, so called "GNU/Freedom", distinction between proprietary and not proprietary software, in fact about software itself. Software is just a tool and people use it to achieve their goals. Software itself is not a goal. Software is like a toothbrush.

For example, I develop software for living (mostly Java). I am my own boss, a freelancer, one man band. The most of my code is proprietary, and I don't feel inferior in any way to some GNU coder. Quite the opposite, in fact.

If I buy a new laptop in February, chances Vista is forced upon me

I don't know where you live, but I had the option to buy laptop with XP Home or laptop with FreeDOS. They had similar hardware characteristics, but the one with XP was cheaper. Not much, but cheaper. I bought it and removed XP the same evening. My desktop PC was bought without OS.

I know what is your problem. You don't care about the price, you just don't want your money to go to Microsoft. Well, suit yourself, but don't expect me to follow your example. You, Stallman, Perens, Kuhn, and others are not my heroes.

DG

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: NotParker has got to go
by twenex on Sat 16th Dec 2006 11:21 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: NotParker has got to go"
twenex Member since:
2006-04-21

Anti-DRM campaign was not a success. It was a fiasco. No one cared to listen. Some activists even had troubles with police.

Was? Is it finished? No? Well then. Not a success? Then why is EMI experimenting with MP3 - that's emm pii three, non-DRM-crippled - files for music distribution? Why did Sony withdraw it's rootkitted CD's.

Do you have any evidence that "some activists even had troubles with police". As in, that it actually happened?

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: NotParker has got to go
by Rayz on Sat 16th Dec 2006 03:55 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: NotParker has got to go"
Rayz Member since:
2006-06-24

So let me get this straight.

You want to beat the crap out of him for his opinions?
But you're not a fanatic?

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: NotParker has got to go
by merkoth on Sat 16th Dec 2006 21:58 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: NotParker has got to go"
merkoth Member since:
2006-09-22

So let me get this straight.

You want to beat the crap out of him for his opinions?
But you're not a fanatic?


No, I want to beat the crap out of him because he's insulting me.

Reply Score: 1

RE: NotParker has got to go
by JeffS on Fri 15th Dec 2006 21:52 UTC in reply to "NotParker has got to go"
JeffS Member since:
2005-07-12

"Mod me off topic or mod me down for a perceived personal attack, but I'll simply have to say this now.

If Osnews wants to be anything resembling a decent newssite where actual discussions can take place, trolls like NotParker have to be taken care of.

Otherwise they'll dominate every last discussion with their stupid trolling and make any reasonable conversation impossible."


Amen.

I saw his posts in the "no non-gpl drivers in Linux kernel" thread, and people were bending over backwards trying to have a civil conversation with him. But he refused, and kept trolling and flaming away, and couldn't make a reasonable argument, or back anything up with facts, or just behave like a decent human being.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: NotParker has got to go
by Thom_Holwerda on Fri 15th Dec 2006 21:57 UTC in reply to "RE: NotParker has got to go"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

I might be saying something really stupid, but you could also just *shock horror gasp* ignore the guy.

I'm sorry, we don't ban easily, and extremely impolite he has not been. He is not any more annoying than mouli.. mauli... That French guy.

So, just ignore the guy. Asking for banishment like this in the comments' section surely is not something we like.

Edited 2006-12-15 21:58

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: NotParker has got to go
by archiesteel on Fri 15th Dec 2006 22:01 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: NotParker has got to go"
archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

I agree that NotParker should not be banished. Censorship of any kind is unacceptable.

I'm sorry, we don't ban easily, and extremely impolite he has not been.

Right, he has only been mildly impolite - and that only further damages his credibility, so it works out in the end.

So, just ignore the guy.

Again, sound advice, which I'll follow as of Jan. 1, 2007. :-)

Reply Score: 5

RE[3]: NotParker has got to go
by twenex on Fri 15th Dec 2006 22:03 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: NotParker has got to go"
twenex Member since:
2006-04-21

I'm sorry, we don't ban easily, and extremely impolite he has not been. He is not any more annoying than mouli.. mauli... That French guy.

I beg to differ. He's much more annoying, if only because "that French guy" is practically silent by comparison.

Reply Score: 5

RE[4]: NotParker has got to go
by andrewg on Fri 15th Dec 2006 22:10 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: NotParker has got to go"
andrewg Member since:
2005-07-06

I agree. It would be interesting to see what the ratio of NotParker posts to the total is when anything remotely connected to Microsoft is beig discussed.

Edited 2006-12-15 22:16

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: NotParker has got to go
by ralph on Fri 15th Dec 2006 22:04 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: NotParker has got to go"
ralph Member since:
2005-07-10

No, I can't.

Why? Because every last discussion he participates in is filled with people (who understandably don't want to leave his trolling go unanswered) trying to argue with him, making any other converstion impossible.

So ignoring him amounts to ignoring discussions on Osnews.

Reply Score: 5

RE[3]: NotParker has got to go
by helf on Fri 15th Dec 2006 22:16 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: NotParker has got to go"
helf Member since:
2005-07-06

Thom, if you won't weed out people, then can you ATLEAST add an option to mark certain user names on an ignore list so you dont have to see them?

Please?

Pretty please?

Reply Score: 5

RE[4]: NotParker has got to go
by archiesteel on Fri 15th Dec 2006 22:17 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: NotParker has got to go"
archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

Thom, if you won't weed out people, then can you ATLEAST add an option to mark certain user names on an ignore list so you dont have to see them?

Actually, that's a pretty good idea. It works well on other sites who have implemented it.

This feature has my vote.

Reply Score: 5

RE[5]: NotParker has got to go
by twenex on Fri 15th Dec 2006 22:22 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: NotParker has got to go"
twenex Member since:
2006-04-21

And mine.

Reply Score: 3

v RE[5]: NotParker has got to go
by NotParker on Fri 15th Dec 2006 22:26 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: NotParker has got to go"
RE[6]: NotParker has got to go
by sbergman27 on Fri 15th Dec 2006 23:31 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: NotParker has got to go"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

I vote no. We all have a filter capable of ignoring posts we don't care to read. It's called a "brain".

All this business with posts starting out at +2... not being able to reply to posts < -3... is silly.

Let's get back to flaming each other in comfortable simplicity. ;-)

Edited 2006-12-15 23:35

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: NotParker has got to go
by anda_skoa on Fri 15th Dec 2006 22:31 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: NotParker has got to go"
anda_skoa Member since:
2005-07-07

This feature has my vote.

And my axe!

Wait, wrong movie ;)

Reply Score: 5

RE[6]: NotParker has got to go
by andrewg on Fri 15th Dec 2006 22:51 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: NotParker has got to go"
andrewg Member since:
2005-07-06

I can just picture Gimli ;)

Maybe thats why the FSF is launched this campaign. They figured, "Certainty of death.. Small chance of success.. What are we waiting for?"

P.S. Tried to mod you up twice but it didn't work.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: NotParker has got to go
by RandomGuy on Fri 15th Dec 2006 23:26 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: NotParker has got to go"
RandomGuy Member since:
2006-07-30

"This feature has my vote.

And my axe!

Wait, wrong movie ;) "

Indeed! When NotParker finally figures out that we vote him down for every comment without a "*" in it, he will sound more like Kenny.
And your axe gives me a hint what his next tragic death might be like.
I love you guys! ;)

Btw, you have my vote, too.
So I guess everybody agrees that we need this feature, right?

Regarding the FSF:
I think they are taking the wrong approach by telling everybody how _evil_ MS is and painting doomsday scenarios.
What they _should_ tell people is just how _uncool_ and inconvenient it is to pay money for software and have someone else tell you what to do with your machine.
Their motto should be "Vista sucks" rather than "MS is evil".
Don't hate them, make fun of them!

Reply Score: 3

RE[7]: NotParker has got to go
by b3timmons on Fri 15th Dec 2006 23:43 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: NotParker has got to go"
b3timmons Member since:
2006-08-26

"Regarding the FSF:
I think they are taking the wrong approach by telling everybody how _evil_ MS is and painting doomsday scenarios.
What they _should_ tell people is just how _uncool_ and inconvenient it is to pay money for software and have someone else tell you what to do with your machine.
Their motto should be "Vista sucks" rather than "MS is evil".
Don't hate them, make fun of them!
"

The FSF is emphasizing bad business practices, which should concern many people. In the long run (a few years), Doomsday scenarios come naturally with DRM, which Vista features heavily. Paying for software has never been an important part of any message from the FSF: free software means "free as in speech" not "free as in beer" (no cost is just a frequent side effect).

I agree that they should do more to inform people that others should not tell them to what to do with their machine; fortunately, DRM does play into this a bit, so at least the FSF has a start. Making fun of MS works well with informed people, but I think ordinary people might get confused, wondering how such a powerful company could be stupid. How could they see the humor? Even if they could, would humor really dissuade them from Vista?

Edited 2006-12-15 23:46

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: NotParker has got to go
by dylansmrjones on Fri 15th Dec 2006 22:47 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: NotParker has got to go"
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

And mine as well.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: NotParker has got to go
by Beta on Sat 16th Dec 2006 00:11 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: NotParker has got to go"
Beta Member since:
2005-07-06

"Thom, if you won't weed out people, then can you ATLEAST add an option to mark certain user names on an ignore list so you dont have to see them?
Actually, that's a pretty good idea. It works well on other sites who have implemented it.
This feature has my vote."


++, though…

I can think of a better system, gagging.
After a certain poster has gained, say, -10 (legal reasons, offensive posts...) in comments from one article, they aren't allowed to continue to comment in that thread again.

How does that sound?

Reply Score: 3

v RE[6]: NotParker has got to go
by NotParker on Sat 16th Dec 2006 02:12 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: NotParker has got to go"
RE[7]: NotParker has got to go
by helf on Sat 16th Dec 2006 02:30 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: NotParker has got to go"
helf Member since:
2005-07-06

Parker actually has a point. That would be horribly abused. NOT a good idea.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: NotParker has got to go
by raver31 on Fri 15th Dec 2006 22:34 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: NotParker has got to go"
raver31 Member since:
2005-07-06

It is a good idea.

I have a few ideas too.

1: Notparker, Linux is Poo, and Moulinfool should be on automatic -1.

2: We should have an ignore list we can add them to.

3: We ignore their posts.

OR THE BEST ONE OF THEM ALL

4: Do not be drawn into an argument.

Take it from someone who has lived in Northern Ireland all his life, you cannot change a bigot.

Reply Score: 5

RE[5]: NotParker has got to go
by ronaldst on Fri 15th Dec 2006 22:43 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: NotParker has got to go"
ronaldst Member since:
2005-06-29

@raver31

NotParker suggested(*) something even better. An icon to see who modded up/down posts. I'd love to see this implemented into the moderation system. I bet we'd see the same over-emotional abusers over and over...

This core of this article is by a group of bigots (the FSF and it's goons). They crossed the line when they started their little holy war.

(*) http://www.osnews.com/meta/read.php/1165241630/a_change_to_default_...
Look for Modding down on 12/09/2006 11:10 PM by NotParker

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: NotParker has got to go
by dylansmrjones on Fri 15th Dec 2006 22:50 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: NotParker has got to go"
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

This core of this article is by a group of bigots (the FSF and it's goons). They crossed the line when they started their little holy war.

You want to be like moulineuf or how you spell it? NotParker's post btw. is a +1.

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: NotParker has got to go
by ronaldst on Fri 15th Dec 2006 22:52 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: NotParker has got to go"
ronaldst Member since:
2005-06-29

@dylansmrjones

Sorry bro, I don't read Moulineuf's posts.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: NotParker has got to go
by twenex on Fri 15th Dec 2006 22:43 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: NotParker has got to go"
twenex Member since:
2006-04-21

Take it from someone who has lived in Northern Ireland all his life, you cannot change a bigot.

Kudos.

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: NotParker has got to go
by postmodern on Fri 15th Dec 2006 22:50 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: NotParker has got to go"
postmodern Member since:
2006-01-27

How about also making sure multiple users aren't coming from the same IP. This would help stop viral marketers or other PR scams.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: NotParker has got to go
by raver31 on Sat 16th Dec 2006 05:54 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: NotParker has got to go"
raver31 Member since:
2005-07-06

Good Idea, except I work in a place where our broadcasted IP address is the same for everyone in the building. We have been banned from a lot of forums because they assume it is multiple accounts from the same person.

hppt://netropolis.lineone.net was a good game, but no-one in my work can play it now ;)

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: NotParker has got to go
by gilboa on Sat 16th Dec 2006 00:59 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: NotParker has got to go"
gilboa Member since:
2005-07-06

/+1.

- Gilboa

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: NotParker has got to go
by postmodern on Fri 15th Dec 2006 22:41 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: NotParker has got to go"
postmodern Member since:
2006-01-27

So good sir, could you point us to the "Ignore List" option. Such a list would help us automatically ignore users, and never risk accidentally seeing their comments which could enrage us.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: NotParker has got to go
by dylansmrjones on Fri 15th Dec 2006 22:47 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: NotParker has got to go"
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

Haha... mouilineuf... or how you spell it. I think it has to l's. Anyway, he is not so much annoying due to being impolite - he's annoying because his sentences are completely wrong from a grammatical point of view.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: NotParker has got to go
by protagonist on Fri 15th Dec 2006 22:47 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: NotParker has got to go"
protagonist Member since:
2005-07-06

I have to agree with you here, and thanks for saying it. Just because we don't agree with someones stance is no reason to mod someone down. His posts are not foul and obscene and they usually are on the topic at hand. We should pity him because he may actually believe the Windows is the best thing since sliced bread.

Since he seems to thrive on abuse perhaps if we were all nice to him he would go away. :-)

Anyway, I think the FSF is not so much against Microsoft as they are against the fact that MS has taken every opportunity to limit peoples choices. BeOS was a good example of this. From what I read MS quietly had words with some of the major hardware players when they were considering allowing the systems they sold to dual boot between Windows and BeOS. After being told that modifying the MBR would violate the agreement they had with MS, the vendors backed down.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: NotParker has got to go
by hal2k1 on Fri 15th Dec 2006 23:13 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: NotParker has got to go"
hal2k1 Member since:
2005-11-11

//I might be saying something really stupid, but you could also just *shock horror gasp* ignore the guy. //

I think that is excellent advice, but unfortunately it ignores human nature.

It is often difficult to let pure misinformation go uncommented, even when it is blatant trolling.

I would tentatively suggest OsNews look at making provisions for people to have an ignore list, perhaps? That could be a partial solution, possibly?

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: NotParker has got to go
by Moulinneuf on Fri 15th Dec 2006 23:39 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: NotParker has got to go"
Moulinneuf Member since:
2005-07-06

Moulinneuf is my real life name Thom ...

I am from CANADA , so your racism to French and the French people as no effect on me at all.

I dont see why youre mixing me into your moderation problems with Notparker. I am insulting to those who called me names or who insulted me and my work :

http://www.osnews.com/userinfo.php?uid=266

Might I suggest you direct your problem and this discussion to the appropriate place :

http://www.osnews.com/meta/blog.php

If you have a personnal problem with me my email is Moulinneuf@yahoo.com

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: NotParker has got to go
by sbergman27 on Fri 15th Dec 2006 23:54 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: NotParker has got to go"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

"""
Moulinneuf is my real life name
"""

I'm solidly against banning anyone in this forum.

And I thought Tohm Hol... Howl.. whatever's... gratuitous inclusion of you into this thread was a bit cheap... especially for OSNews staff.

Edited 2006-12-15 23:56

Reply Score: 4

RE[5]: NotParker has got to go
by Moulinneuf on Sat 16th Dec 2006 01:13 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: NotParker has got to go"
Moulinneuf Member since:
2005-07-06

"And I thought Tohm Hol... Howl.. whatever's.."

Please , use copy paste , it happen to be is real name too , I dont like it when people play with my name , so I wont support those who do it to others , sorry nothing personnal.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: NotParker has got to go
by sbergman27 on Sat 16th Dec 2006 21:37 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: NotParker has got to go"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

OK. No problem. To be honest, I was going to reply to Thom's message earlier, but I couldn't find the spelling of your name... and I wasn't sure of it, and didn't want to misspell it, so I held off! ;-)

It is a bit of a difficult spelling. I almost got it right with "Moulineuf". Just missing one "n".

Anyway, I've glanced back on your posting history, out of curiosity, and I frankly don't understand why you are so maligned by some.

I'm more OSS than FS, so your views are probably more aligned with the FSF philosophy than are mine. But you seem civil and make good points.

Adding you as "Friend" in my account config. :-)

Reply Score: 2

RE: NotParker has got to go
by gilboa on Sat 16th Dec 2006 00:55 UTC in reply to "NotParker has got to go"
gilboa Member since:
2005-07-06

Or at least limit the number of posts, per article to say, 5?
Not only this troll posts count-less off-topic/offensive posts on each GNU/FSF/Linux/Mozilla/<add OSS item> topic, he also blocks the thread by posting and re-posting the same spam over and over again.
Even worse, he's been asked times and times again if he's a Microsoft employee and/or working for it and he never took the time to deny it. (And considering the sheer number of junk posts he's been spewing, this is -very- odd)

Having an troll trash each and every thread is one thing.
Having an troll trash each and every thread in the name of his employer is far worse. *

- Gilboa
* Though, being a Linux advocate, (and if indeed this spammer is a Microsoft employee) I (or we) have a vested interest in keeping him around. Letting your opponent make a mockery out of himself times and times again can't be bad for our collective goal.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: NotParker has got to go
by Xaero_Vincent on Sat 16th Dec 2006 02:14 UTC in reply to "NotParker has got to go"
Xaero_Vincent Member since:
2006-08-18

I really don't care that NotParker dislikes FOSS and hails Windows, that is his prerogative.

What bothers me is his agenda here: to insult FOSS-advacating OSNews readers with deceitful propaganda and personal attacks. He's quick to stereotype readers without first observing his own actions.

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: NotParker has got to go
by ronaldst on Sat 16th Dec 2006 02:36 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: NotParker has got to go"
ronaldst Member since:
2005-06-29

@Xaero_Vincent

What bothers me his why does the site owners keeps up this charade? Their moderation system became a game just like on /. and Digg. People on OSNews can't say what they want because of some group who are overemotional towards junk and need psychologist help ASAP.

OSNews was much better when it was moderated by assigned moderators. We had a lot of interesting folks. This stupid moderating system ruined everything. And the people that left were quickly replaced by useful idiots like these OSS fundies, not the regular Linux users, on their space age crusade to save the world from closed-source that's apparently "harming and smuggling more restrictions destined to the user."

Scrap the moderation system. It doesn't work on /. either.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: NotParker has got to go
by alcibiades on Sat 16th Dec 2006 06:57 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: NotParker has got to go"
alcibiades Member since:
2005-10-12

It would probably help if it were not possible to moderate in a thread and post to it. The possibility unfortunately encourages people to over react and mod posts for disagreement.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: NotParker has got to go
by libray on Sat 16th Dec 2006 02:51 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: NotParker has got to go"
libray Member since:
2005-08-27

I've actually read many of NotParkers posts and the thing that is common is that he defends Microsoft in hostile posts. A number of his comments that were -# were very much on topic, and presented another side to the story. Its obvious that there is some zealotry going on here when those comments were modded down.

Quick question: With Microsoft in a dominating position, does it really need to be defended against with those philosophically opposed to its business model?

Consumers normally buy x86 hardware, usually coupled with an OS. No OS can restrict what other OS can be installed on x86 hardware. Apple went the way of restricting via BIOS changes, but thats lower level but would seem to be a more appropriate target if the FSF was really living up to its charter in this matter. So I do not see the comparative "damage" that Vista will cause in terms of restricting choice as the article claims.

A campaign to widen awareness of free alternatives makes sense. This campaign against Vista just makes the FSF seem full of themselves.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: NotParker has got to go
by twenex on Sat 16th Dec 2006 11:16 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: NotParker has got to go"
twenex Member since:
2006-04-21

Perfectly correct.

Reply Score: 2

RE: NotParker has got to go
by Rayz on Sat 16th Dec 2006 03:41 UTC in reply to "NotParker has got to go"
Rayz Member since:
2006-06-24

Translation:

If Osnews wants to be anything resembling a decent FOSS advocacy site, where actual Stallman worship can take place unhindered, then we have to ban anyone who disagrees with us.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: NotParker has got to go
by twenex on Sat 16th Dec 2006 12:03 UTC in reply to "RE: NotParker has got to go"
twenex Member since:
2006-04-21

If Osnews wants to be anything resembling a decent FOSS advocacy site, where actual Stallman worship can take place unhindered, then we have to ban anyone who disagrees with us.

That is /exactly/ like the sort of Bullshitting, insulting crap that we DON'T want from MS users or any others.

It's amazing that anti-social, argument-free b*ll*cks like that actually gets modded up.

Reply Score: 3

RE: NotParker has got to go
by elsewhere on Sat 16th Dec 2006 05:47 UTC in reply to "NotParker has got to go"
elsewhere Member since:
2005-07-13

If Osnews wants to be anything resembling a decent newssite where actual discussions can take place, trolls like NotParker have to be taken care of.

It sucks, but NotParker is part of the OSNews community whether people like it or not. OSNews is a community moderated site, and as imbecilic as he can be pretty much all of the time, I'd still prefer having to wade through his bs than having editorial moderators decide whether I can read his posts or not.

Members in the community with mod points can choose to post comments up or down, which combined with the filter that defaults to -2, gives the community the ability to determine whether his posts should be seen by the average user. The moderation system is certainly abused in many cases (although NotParker genreally invites it) but regardless, the ability to abuse the mod system is still a reflection of the will of the community since it means that either the majority is in agreement or other members are just too apathetic to hand out points for posts that justify it whether they agree or not.

Personally I think NotParker is an @sshat. But even still, I'll only mod him down when he's blatantly off topic or he duplicates his posts, both of which he frequently does. But even still, he sometimes has a post that is worth considering or is at least mildly amusing. I'm not ashamed to admit I've modded him up occassionally, though not as much as I've modded him down.

That's the way it should be. If he's OT, mod him down. If he's on topic and brings up a valid point that is intelligently argued, rare as it is, then either mod it up on merit whether you agree or not, or just ignore it. Let the system try and work the way it's supposed to.

I think that, for the most part, he's a troll. But I'd rather defend his right to troll and let the system hopefully work than have his right to speak arbitrarily denied, sad as that is. I say this because I like to reserve the right to speak my mind as well, and would prefer not to think it will be deleted outright if the powers that be determine I'm being too extreme.

Please don't ever put me in a position to ever have to defend him again, it makes me feel really dirty inside.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: NotParker has got to go
by ThawkTH on Sat 16th Dec 2006 15:41 UTC in reply to "RE: NotParker has got to go"
ThawkTH Member since:
2005-07-06

While I've been more than a bit upset with notparker at times, and frequently feel the need to argue...

I have to say, I don't think anyone wants people banned. You might hate what he says, but most of his posts are quickly modded down to -3+. Really, in the end, we still read his posts.

Maybe it's just like reality TV? Even though we talk about how much we hate it, almost everyone has something they still watch.

I may get unpopular for saying this, but I find reading some comments entertaining - and some discussion enlightening. At the very least, it keeps my shining my argument shoes.

So yeah - it can get annoying, or make you angry - but in the end, it's not really that terrible. Gotta have some respect for the guy - he sticks to his guns and doesn't care HOW unpopular he or his comments are. He adds diversity (without it everyone would be +5, and that's just boring) - and, as a gay 20 year old preseminarian with a passion for technology, I'm a firm believer that diversity and freedom of expression are essential.

Fun too ;)

This IS a site people. A web site for news. It's not really all about business, or seriousness, or anything of the sort. It's an online forum for people to read and respond, add insight, share opinions, etc.

Relax.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: NotParker has got to go
by twenex on Sat 16th Dec 2006 15:55 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: NotParker has got to go"
twenex Member since:
2006-04-21

Gotta have some respect for the guy - he sticks to his guns and doesn't care HOW unpopular he or his comments are.

Umm, no. A person who sticks to his guns with regards to opinions is worthy of respect. A person who sticks to his guns with regards to needless insults is just a NotParker. Also known as a bully.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: NotParker has got to go
by Barnabyh on Sat 16th Dec 2006 16:25 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: NotParker has got to go"
Barnabyh Member since:
2006-02-06

Yes I'ld really miss NotParker ;) ( . Particularly his repeated linking to (overused) stats from 2004 that are supposed to make his case while attacking the other side for providing links to according to him 'outdated' stats from 2005.

Quality.

Reply Score: 2

v RE[4]: NotParker has got to go
by NotParker on Sat 16th Dec 2006 17:23 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: NotParker has got to go"
RE[5]: NotParker has got to go
by archiesteel on Sat 16th Dec 2006 18:05 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: NotParker has got to go"
archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

And here is broken-record NotParker again, with his slew of statistics he copy/pastes in just about every thread he's in.

No matter that the statistics mean very different things that he says they do.

For instance, they are about revenue share, not market share, because the market share numbers are bigger (about 28%) and therefore would not play well to his agenda of making Linux look irrelevant.

He is also mum on the fact that one reason MS has a much higher revenue share compared to its market share is that its offerings are overpriced. Being a MS astroturfer (a charge he's never denied), he couldn't possibly say that, or anything else that would paint MS in a bad light (even tomcat has agreed that Microsoft has been incompetent in the past).

Also, he often refers to the growth "tending towards zero" when anyone looking at the stats can easily tell that the growth is moderating at around 5%, which is more than for Windows servers.

Of course, this is all off-topic, but that has never bothered him. Just like regularly insulting people who dare to disagree with him.

So, to all the pro-MS posters who talk about the FSF's fanaticism, let me tell you: whatever their positions, these guys have nothing on the fanaticism displayed by MS astroturfers and/or fanboys on this site.

Reply Score: 4

RE[6]: NotParker has got to go
by twenex on Sat 16th Dec 2006 18:57 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: NotParker has got to go"
twenex Member since:
2006-04-21


So, to all the pro-MS posters who talk about the FSF's fanaticism, let me tell you: whatever their positions, these guys have nothing on the fanaticism displayed by MS astroturfers and/or fanboys on this site.


Amein.

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: NotParker has got to go
by eMagius on Sat 16th Dec 2006 20:47 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: NotParker has got to go"
eMagius Member since:
2005-07-06

Oh, of course. If you're against the FSF's manipulative practices and fearmongering, you're clearly a Microsoft astroturfer.

That logic worked for the Republicans for years, didn't it? You're either with us or you're a terrorist, right?

Reply Score: 5

RE[7]: NotParker has got to go
by archiesteel on Sat 16th Dec 2006 20:58 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: NotParker has got to go"
archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

Oh, of course. If you're against the FSF's manipulative practices and fearmongering, you're clearly a Microsoft astroturfer.

That's not what I said, eMagius. Please stay honest and don't distort my words.

The fact is that when someone *never* criticizes Microsoft, *always* jumps to Microsoft's defense, *always* claims that the MS version of any program is the best there is, *always* claims that competitors to Microsoft are irrelevant, or inferior, or even immoral...well, one is right to suspect that this person is a prime candidate for astroturfing.

Then, when you openly state that you suspect that this person is astroturfing, that you confront that person and they don't even try to deny that they are astroturfing, then this tends to reinforce the notion that they are.

I mean, it is entirely possible that this particular someone (which I will not name here) is not an astroturfer and merely a overeager cheerleader...however, I have a hard time believing that someone could be that dedicated, that philosophically and emotionally attached to a company through pure fanboyism. It boggles my mind to consider this - even die-hard Apple fans are not as utterly, completely committed to MS as this prime candidate for astroturfing is.

BTW, comparing FOSS advocates to Republican is quite a cheap shot, considering how good a friend the Republicans have been to Microsoft under Dubya's reign...

And if you believe that MS doesn't hire astroturfers to pollute web sites with their propaganda, well, I'm sorry to say that I consider this to be incredibly naive. It wouldn't make *any* sense for MS to pass over such cost-effective "guerilla marketing" tactics. They have the means, the motivation, and the past history of underhanded shenanigans to do this, I would be very surprised if they didnt.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: NotParker has got to go
by ThawkTH on Sat 16th Dec 2006 18:27 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: NotParker has got to go"
ThawkTH Member since:
2005-07-06

I never claimed to be a fan, nor did I claim his arguments have merit. Only that his view was different and unique. It adds some diversity.

Does it add a great viewpoint, well versed, backed up, and respectful of others? No. And it tends to make most of his arguments null.

What I WAS saying is

A.) I tend to find him SOMETIMES entertaining (certainly not always)

B.)Some of his views have some validity. Badly worded? Usually. Backed up? Almost never.

Is he ever 'right'? That's too relative a term.


And yes, he is often a bully. And no, I don't respect him for that. I respect him for having an opinion and expressing it - not for HOW he does so. The two are neither mutually inclusive or exclusive.

Reply Score: 2

Good antidote to the Vista hype
by b3timmons on Fri 15th Dec 2006 21:45 UTC
b3timmons
Member since:
2006-08-26

The Vista hype will undoubtedly reach shameless proportions. BadVista.org has just started with a few good essays and links about why Vista is a mistake.

The background photo on the website is of a dump of replaced computer parts--waste, which is what Vista is in so many ways. This is a good reminder that by helping people avoid Vista, we will also encourage them to get the maximum benefit from their current system and not pollute any faster than the current manic pace. This also provides a great opportunity for consultants who can just convince clients against an outlay for a new Microsoft license of dubious value in favor of consulting service (spyware removal, upgrade to GNU/Linux, etc.) if needed.

For new hardware, just seek a refund for the Vista license, as Paul Thurrott recommends:
http://www.securityfocus.com/comments/columns/420/34037#34037

Reply Score: 5

raynevandunem Member since:
2006-11-24

Haven't seen anything yet in regards to Vista. Most of any press that I've seen/heard about it is either bad or Linux/Mac-related.

However, I could see such levels of hype surrounding the Presentation Foundation stack that they're pushing out after Vista gets out there.

With all the press surrounding it (the Flash-killer, the PDF-killer, etc.), I'm very drawn to believe that WPF is what Microsoft's really bringing to "the social" next year.

Reply Score: 1

mzilikazi
Member since:
2006-02-11

If I've heard it once, I've heard it 1000 times. "Operating system? What's that?" Beyond the crowd that IS interested in all things geeky there is the 'whatever' crowd that simply wants to push the ON button, surf, email, edit some photos, etc. and walk away. It simply does not matter to a large portion of pc users what happens behind the scenes. PC's with Vista will be here because Vista is (will be) on all new pc's. The worst defeat is one given you by your own weapon. We need to have alternative's on the shelves, in the faces and in the hands and in the minds of more users just like the boys in Redmond do.

Reply Score: 5

twenex Member since:
2006-04-21

People might not know what an "operating system" is, but anyone who has ever used a computer by now surely knows what "Windows" is, even if they think the whole thing is "Windows".

EDIT: So introduce Linux as "an alternative to Windows". Or even, "an alternative to Microsoft". They'll have heard of THAT!

Edited 2006-12-15 22:35

Reply Score: 3

FSF could have done better
by TaterSalad on Fri 15th Dec 2006 21:58 UTC
TaterSalad
Member since:
2005-07-06

I like open source as much as the next guy but after reading that blog I will not support the FSF. Instead of pointing out how wrong Vista is why don't they point out how right open source is. I have a big problem with over-zealousness. Not to mention this goes against what the FSF. Its about freedom of choice, but they don't want you to have the freedom to choose Vista if you want to.

Reply Score: 5

RE: FSF could have done better
by twenex on Fri 15th Dec 2006 22:09 UTC in reply to "FSF could have done better"
twenex Member since:
2006-04-21

I like open source as much as the next guy but after reading that blog I will not support the FSF. Instead of pointing out how wrong Vista is why don't they point out how right open source is.

They do that all over their site.

I have a big problem with over-zealousness. Not to mention this goes against what the FSF. Its about freedom of choice, but they don't want you to have the freedom to choose Vista if you want to.

The FSF is against proprietary software, among other things because it encourages things like DRM. You don't have to agree with them if you don't want to, but by the same token that means they don't have to put up with or advise in favour of ClSS.

Reply Score: 4

RE: FSF could have done better
by b3timmons on Fri 15th Dec 2006 22:59 UTC in reply to "FSF could have done better"
b3timmons Member since:
2006-08-26

"Its about freedom of choice, but they don't want you to have the freedom to choose Vista if you want to."

False. There's a big difference between adocating against a choice such as what the FSF is doing versus adocating against choice in general. If you look carefully at what they do, it is just education which you are free to ignore.

You could argue that they advocate against nonfree software in general, but even then there are at least two objections. First, this again takes nothing away from your ability to choose. Second, you might realize that there are increasing choices within free software alone. Indeed, some gripe about too much choice.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: FSF could have done better
by tomcat on Sat 16th Dec 2006 06:36 UTC in reply to "RE: FSF could have done better"
tomcat Member since:
2006-01-06

False. There's a big difference between adocating against a choice such as what the FSF is doing versus adocating against choice in general. If you look carefully at what they do, it is just education which you are free to ignore.

Ah, if only that were true. Alas, it isn't. The FSF has been and is involved in quite a few activities which reduce our ability to choose our software...

For example, here is what Stallman has to say about the FSF and proprietary software in a recent interview: "Our mission is to completely reject proprietary software and to make it easy for everyone else to reject it too. Our mission is to solve the social problem of proprietary software.” Here's what he said earlier: "I want to establish that the practice of owning software is both materially wasteful, spiritually harmful to society and evil."

In other words, he wants to eliminate your ability to choose proprietary software, even it works for you.

How is the FSF doing that? Sadly, in quite a few ways... The FSF lobbied for rule changes in Massachusetts which forced ODF down peoples' throats.

https://www.fsf.org/news/OpenDocument

The FSF is also involved in promoting legislation that would force governments to use open source software and reject proprietary software.

"This is a political and ethical issue, just like freedom of the press or freedom of association," said Richard Stallman, founder and president of the Free Software Foundation, who this year addressed the Brazilian Congress on the subject. "It makes sense, especially for countries like Brazil that are not rich, to encourage the country to switch from proprietary software to free software."

So, really, spare us the talk of "freedom". Anyone who wants to use the force of law to force others to choose their software isn't doing us any favors. I can decide for myself and so, too, can those who evaluate software requirements. We don't need the FSF to promote forceful legislation.

Reply Score: 3

b3timmons Member since:
2006-08-26

"In other words, he wants to eliminate your ability to choose proprietary software, even it works for you.

How is the FSF doing that? Sadly, in quite a few ways... The FSF lobbied for rule changes in Massachusetts which forced ODF down peoples' throats.
"

Forcing a multi-vendor standard in state government offices as opposed to, what, a de facto monopolistic standard? Of course, you conveniently leave out the fact that most of the products that support ODF are proprietary: StarOffice, Workplace Client, Corel, etc.

"The FSF is also involved in promoting legislation that would force governments to use open source software and reject proprietary software. "

How anybody could compare FSF speeches and letters that are easily ignored with the wheel-grea$ing ability of Gates/Ballmer/Microsoft is beyond ridiculous.

"So, really, spare us the talk of "freedom". Anyone who wants to use the force of law to force others to choose their software isn't doing us any favors. I can decide for myself and so, too, can those who evaluate software requirements. We don't need the FSF to promote forceful legislation."

All I see is equivocation and conflation here. Name those foreign governments who want to legislate against proprietary software in their offices, and I'll show you governments that had enough of the US anyway -- just a question of how and when. Now matter how much you rant about governments, you will have to try harder to pretend there is some magical connection between them and what their populations choose to do on their own. You hope that careless readers will conflate the two, but I call you on the deception here.

Oh yeah, what's "forceful legislation"? That is, legislation, and last time I checked the FSF were not the first group to ever lobby a government, and, unlike Microsoft, there is no need to scrutinize campaign financing [snicker].

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: FSF could have done better
by tomcat on Sat 16th Dec 2006 07:18 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: FSF could have done better"
tomcat Member since:
2006-01-06

Forcing a multi-vendor standard in state government offices as opposed to, what, a de facto monopolistic standard? Of course, you conveniently leave out the fact that most of the products that support ODF are proprietary: StarOffice, Workplace Client, Corel, etc.

It's about choice. Not forcing your choice on people. The folks who chose the original document formats made decisions based on requirements, not ideology. Forcing them to ignore requirements reduces their choice.

How anybody could compare FSF speeches and letters that are easily ignored with the wheel-grea$ing ability of Gates/Ballmer/Microsoft is beyond ridiculous.

Wow. Strangely, Gates/Ballmer/Microsoft had no impact on the EU's recent rejection of software patents. So much for the FSF being "easily ignored", huh?

All I see is equivocation and conflation here. Name those foreign governments who want to legislate against proprietary software in their offices, and I'll show you governments that had enough of the US anyway -- just a question of how and when.

It isn't an exaggeration to say that F/OSS proponents are working directly with legislators who want to eliminate proprietary software, even if the latter works better. The fact is that, if governments wanted to change from proprietary to F/OSS, they could do so without legislation. The reason that F/OSS proponents want legislation is that they don't want an even playing field. They want to forcefully dislodge proprietary software which simply works better because they can't compete.

Oh yeah, what's "forceful legislation"? That is, legislation, and last time I checked the FSF were not the first group to ever lobby a government, and, unlike Microsoft, there is no need to scrutinize campaign financing [snicker].

See California. See EU anti-patent legislation. See French parliament. Etc.

Reply Score: 1

b3timmons Member since:
2006-08-26

"It's about choice. Not forcing your choice on people. The folks who chose the original document formats made decisions based on requirements, not ideology. Forcing them to ignore requirements reduces their choice. "

You know better, so I can only assume you are just lying. After all, the big requirement has been longevity of document formats, and the ISO standard wins. End of story.

"Wow. Strangely, Gates/Ballmer/Microsoft had no impact on the EU's recent rejection of software patents. So much for the FSF being "easily ignored", huh?"

How do you know that the impact was nonexistent? How about delay, decreased fine, who knows? In any case, their money and influence could not overcome a good argument, this time.


"It isn't an exaggeration to say that F/OSS proponents are working directly with legislators who want to eliminate proprietary software, even if the latter works better. The fact is that, if governments wanted to change from proprietary to F/OSS, they could do so without legislation. The reason that F/OSS proponents want legislation is that they don't want an even playing field. They want to forcefully dislodge proprietary software which simply works better because they can't compete. "

These assertions are too general in the context of diverse situations to be usefully considered. It's better to consider specific cases here. But as a general point, if proprietary software were so compelling and if the transparency and local investment that comes along with free software mattered so little, this discussion would be moot.

See California. See EU anti-patent legislation. See French parliament. Etc.

What is so bad about these things? Does Microsoft need a loan from the FSF for extra legal help or something? Heck, even Microsoft cannot be 100% for patents, and yesterday the FSF lawyer sided with them before the Supremes, and it wasn't the first time the FSF sided with Microsoft. (A converse situation I cannot recall, however.)

Edited 2006-12-16 07:52

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: FSF could have done better
by tomcat on Sat 16th Dec 2006 08:40 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: FSF could have done better"
tomcat Member since:
2006-01-06

You know better, so I can only assume you are just lying.

Nice non-sequitor. I disagree with you; therefore, I'm lying. Nice.

How do you know that the impact was nonexistent?

The outcome. That's how.

These assertions are too general in the context of diverse situations to be usefully considered.

I gave you specific examples. You ignored them.

What is so bad about these things?

I've already told you: Legislating software choice is always a bad thing.

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: FSF could have done better
by twenex on Sat 16th Dec 2006 10:59 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: FSF could have done better"
twenex Member since:
2006-04-21

I've already told you: Legislating software choice is always a bad thing.

Legislating against illegal monopolies has been done for years.

Only for some reason when it happens to Microsoft, suddenly it's a "bad thing".

Funny.

Reply Score: 3

A stupid move
by Temcat on Fri 15th Dec 2006 22:00 UTC
Temcat
Member since:
2005-10-18

I'm not particularly fond of Microsoft as a company, and I do support free software of all kinds, but such campaigns won't do any good to the entity that launches them. First of all, that entity will automatically be perceived as a loser, since it's all on the defensive side. Seriously, we don't need another "Get the Facts" from the opposite side (though after a bit of reading on BadVista.org, I came to conclusion that "GtF" was even a tad more reasonable.) Secondly, even if it could possibly work, it would do so only with huge marketing resources and visibility that FSF lacks.

Whoever is responsible for PR in FSF must be fired.

Reply Score: 3

RE: A stupid move
by b3timmons on Fri 15th Dec 2006 23:28 UTC in reply to "A stupid move"
b3timmons Member since:
2006-08-26

"(though after a bit of reading on BadVista.org, I came to conclusion that "GtF" was even a tad more reasonable.)"

What made you conclude this? What suggestions can we make to the FSF to make it more reasonable? I just exchanged emails with RMS the other day. Could I do that with Gates or Ballmer?

Suggestions for improvement are appreciated.

Reply Score: 2

RE: A stupid move
by trenchsol on Sat 16th Dec 2006 00:54 UTC in reply to "A stupid move"
trenchsol Member since:
2006-12-07

I think that you are wrong. FSF is doing PR perfectly, because it meets their ends.

FSF is spreading a pseudo religion. People are being convinced that writing software without financial compensation is ethical. As a result people actualy write software without a compensation. That software is used as the solutions by some companies. The companies are returning favour by becoming "corporate patrons" to FSF.

It is a win-win situation. Companies get free software for their solutions, FSF gets funding, and developers have peace of mind.

http://www.fsf.org/donate/patron

DG

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: A stupid move
by b3timmons on Sat 16th Dec 2006 01:31 UTC in reply to "RE: A stupid move"
b3timmons Member since:
2006-08-26

"FSF is spreading a pseudo religion. People are being convinced that writing software without financial compensation is ethical. As a result people actualy write software without a compensation. That software is used as the solutions by some companies. The companies are returning favour by becoming "corporate patrons" to FSF."

Woah. Hold on. The FSF is spreading ethical thinking, which is fundamentally different from religion. Some people refuse to acknowledge ethics, but that is denying reality. After all, the law itself is in principle derived from ethical reasoning. Ethics is undeniably important, and there are a few useful ethical theories which anyone can use to reason with.

If you learn more about the people writing the software without compensation, you will see many possible motivations and that the really good developers end up doing it as a career. I do not know whether they have peace of mind, but I am sure they feel some satisfaction from activities with a solid ethical basis.

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: A stupid move
by trenchsol on Sat 16th Dec 2006 01:38 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: A stupid move"
trenchsol Member since:
2006-12-07

I said it was a win-win situation, didn't I ?

DG

Reply Score: 1

FSF doing a great service with BadVista.org
by JeffS on Fri 15th Dec 2006 22:06 UTC
JeffS
Member since:
2005-07-12

BadVista will be a mere whisper compared to the mega-decibel noise coming from MS Vista marketing.

But it will help. If it helps educate some people about all the DRM, Trojan horse, remote control, licensing tangle, remote spying and other traps built into Vista, it's a very good thing.

People also have to be aware of Vista's ridiculous hardware requirements. Forget about what is officially billed as the minimum requirements - those only work with the most stripped down version, and tortuously slow. To get all the new bells and whistles (mostly the new Aero interface, multi-media stuff, etc), a recent (pro-Microsoft) review said minimum dual core, 2Gig ram, 256meg Video Card. That's minimum for half way decent performance, with running apps. Wow.

The sad thing is, most people will have Vista eventually, because OEM's are forced to install it (otherwise face price gouging from MS), and new PCs will have it. So, even though nobody is interested in Vista, everyone will eventually be forced to use it.

It's absolutely amazing that there are people stupid, naive, or ignorant enough not to see a problem with all of this (read NotParker).

Only when there is true competition will MS actually deliver something that actually benefits consumers.

Reply Score: 5

NotParker Member since:
2006-06-01

People also have to be aware of Vista's ridiculous hardware requirements. Forget about what is officially billed as the minimum requirements - those only work with the most stripped down version, and tortuously slow. To get all the new bells and whistles (mostly the new Aero interface, multi-media stuff, etc), a recent (pro-Microsoft) review said minimum dual core, 2Gig ram, 256meg Video Card. That's minimum for half way decent performance, with running apps.

I'm running RC2 with 1GB of ram and its faster than a fresh install of XP on the same hardware.

D*** is selling dual core computers more than capable of running Vista for under 800$ with 1GB ram, 256MB video and a 19" LCD.

Most people will find that a bargain.

Reply Score: 3

dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

800$ is 5000 danish crowns. I can't afford that this year.

Reply Score: 1

dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

Where do I write anything with choice? I merely responded to a post saying how cheap it was to upgrade the hardware. I made a quick calculation, and could conclude it is so expensive, it's not going to happen until 2009 for me.

Reply Score: 1

b3timmons Member since:
2006-08-26

It's absolutely amazing that there are people stupid, naive, or ignorant enough not to see a problem with all of this (read NotParker).

You missed an important possibility: dishonesty. Unfortunately, it is rife in the media in the form of equivocation and sophistry that will be used to promote Vista.

Reply Score: 2

A couple of reminders about the FSF
by b3timmons on Fri 15th Dec 2006 22:14 UTC
b3timmons
Member since:
2006-08-26

1. The FSF has a straightforward approach to donations. If Microsoft could scrape up some money to donate, I am sure the FSF would be happy to accept. There is no contradiction in makers of nonfree software donating to the FSF. There is good PR for the maker, of course, but also the FSF provides consulting services in some cases, which are undoubtedly needed in a transition from proprietary to free software. Even Microsoft has already made efforts to not depend so much on sales from nonfree software.

2. The FSF has the transparency of a nonprofit. Contrast this to Microsoft -- does a more conniving organization exist?

3. The FSF is grass roots. Microsoft, in contrast, qualified as a "Recent Example" in the Wikipedia astroturf definition:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astroturfing
What new coinages might the Vista shenanigans inspire?
Here are a few quotes from the definition for "vista":
In the groves of their academy, at the end of every vista, you see nothing but the gallows. --Burke.
The shattered tower which now forms a vista from his window. --Sir W. Scott.

Reply Score: 4

tomcat Member since:
2006-01-06

The FSF isn't about freedom or choice. If it had its way, you wouldn't be able to choose Vista.

Reply Score: 2

JeffS Member since:
2005-07-12

"The FSF isn't about freedom or choice. If it had its way, you wouldn't be able to choose Vista."

How so?

The FSF hasn't forced anyone to do anything. They are non-profit foundation that is advocating Free software, and authored the GPL, as well as, of course, the terrific GNU tool chain.

Again, the FSF hasn't force danyone to do anything, period. Even if they wanted to, or tried to, they wouldn't have to power to do so.

All they've done is work their butts off producing world class, completely free software, and they act as advocates of Free Software, and critics of non-free software.

They are standing up for users' and developers and distributors rights, nothing more. they stand up for ethics.

Also, if you think that if the FSF had it's way, "you wouldn't be able to choose Vista", prove it. Where has anyone from the FSF said any such thing?

Once again, the FSF are advocates of, and developers of, free software. Nothing more, nothing less.

If anyone is forcing anyone to do anything, it's most certainly Microsoft, with it's DRM, "Windows Genuine Advantage", draconian EULA (which only gives you rights to "rent", essentially, the software you legally purchased, and gives them the right to deny your usage at any time for any reason), threatened price increases on OEMs who offer Linux prominently, and, of course, their continual breaking of the law.

And you think the FSF is against freedom of choice. Wow. ...rolls eyes ...

Edited 2006-12-16 02:58

Reply Score: 5

tomcat Member since:
2006-01-06

Once again, the FSF are advocates of, and developers of, free software. Nothing more, nothing less.

No, they're not merely advocates of free software anymore. Advocacy would be accomplished simply by promoting their free software. But now, they've moved from advocating free software to tearing down proprietary software and trying to convince people of the "harm inflicted" upon them. In fact, the FSF has become a lobbyist. And they want nothing more than to eliminate competitors and reduce your freedom to choose.

Reply Score: 2

alcibiades Member since:
2005-10-12

You would be legally able to choose Vista. MS would be legally able to develop it. Its just that you wouldn't choose it.

Reply Score: 2

raynevandunem Member since:
2006-11-24

The FSF is a non-profit organization.

Microsoft is a for-profit corporation.

Why should they be compared?

Reply Score: 1

b3timmons Member since:
2006-08-26

"The FSF is a non-profit organization.
Microsoft is a for-profit corporation.
Why should they be compared?
"

The comparison is inevitable because many people think of them as opposites in a conflict, such as David versus Goliath, where FSF is much like David versus Goliath-like Microsoft. I am saying the comparison is inevitable, not that it is particularly logical.

For example, sooner or later people try to compare the messages from both sides. Well, that's barely a comparison: the ubiquitous presence of Microsoft in the media, "think tanks", store shelves, "concerned citizens", and who-knows-what-else versus scattered individuals. Paid-for messages versus individual advocacy. That lopsided character of the debate might better inform people on hidden agendas, control of the media, etc.

Reply Score: 2

re: Choice
by Shaman on Fri 15th Dec 2006 22:19 UTC
Shaman
Member since:
2005-11-15

No dissent allowed. See, the fanaticism is spreading.

I swear, I've seen this troll elsewhere as well. On totally separate web forums. It's a cry for attention.

Reply Score: 1

v Hahaha
by ronaldst on Fri 15th Dec 2006 22:22 UTC
...
by Hiev on Fri 15th Dec 2006 22:29 UTC
Hiev
Member since:
2005-09-27

I don't think MS is doing anything wrong, If the FSF had better alternatives to the software I use in Windows (And there isn't) I'll be with them, but I have to be with the the side that's makes me more productive, in this case, Microsoft.

Reply Score: 3

...
by Hiev on Fri 15th Dec 2006 22:34 UTC
Hiev
Member since:
2005-09-27

And Im really tired to hear that I should use Free software because MS is evel, at least once I'd like to hear that I should use Free software because it has better quality and in my case the alternatives I've used in Linux to the software I use in Windows is just pathetic.

Edited 2006-12-15 22:35

Reply Score: 2

RE: ...
by twenex on Fri 15th Dec 2006 22:45 UTC in reply to "..."
twenex Member since:
2006-04-21

in my case the alternatives I've used in Linux to the software I use in Windows is just pathetic.

Then why not tell it to someone who can do something about it, instead of trolling about it on an OS forum?

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: ...
by Hiev on Fri 15th Dec 2006 22:49 UTC in reply to "RE: ..."
Hiev Member since:
2005-09-27

Am I trolling?

Im just talking about my expericence here, so if the FSF want me to use Free software at least give me good options and if you thing calling the people expressing their opinion "troll" will help to the FSF cause then you are totally wrong.

In my opinion the people like you do more damage to the FSF than MS.

Reply Score: 5

RE[3]: ...
by twenex on Fri 15th Dec 2006 23:07 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: ..."
twenex Member since:
2006-04-21

OK, so maybe "troll" was a bit strong.

Nevertheless, whatever problem you're having you'd have a lot more joy pointing out some missing features to the developers, than to random OSnews readers.

In my opinion people like you do more damage to MS than MS.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: ...
by Hiev on Fri 15th Dec 2006 23:10 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: ..."
Hiev Member since:
2005-09-27

Nevertheless, whatever problem you're having you'd have a lot more joy pointing out some missing features to the developers, than to random OSnews readers.

So i guess to you is all right to say ramdon stuff in OSNEWS about MS but is not OK to say stuff about Free software, that's kind of hipocrytal I think.

Reply Score: 0

RE[5]: ...
by twenex on Fri 15th Dec 2006 23:28 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: ..."
twenex Member since:
2006-04-21

It's not hypocritical at all. If Microsoft had their customers' best interests at heart, they wouldn't use proprietary formats at all. The fact that they don't doesn't give me any confidence that they do have my best interests at heart (assuming I do opt to become a customer.) So there's little point complaining to MS about their software being crap, especially since people have been doing it for years. And nobody at Microsoft is hearin' nuthin'.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: ...
by Rayz on Sat 16th Dec 2006 07:16 UTC in reply to "RE: ..."
Rayz Member since:
2006-06-24

Then why not tell it to someone who can do something about it, instead of trolling about it on an OS forum?

Well, if the FOSS community spent half as much energy on actually getting their apps as functional and as polished as most commercial Windows applications, as they do on attacking Microsoft, then you you wouldn’t need to launch desperate attention-seeking campaigns like this one.

Microsoft is so hamstrung by legal troubles of its own making, FOSS has a clear path to compete and make real inroads on the desktop. But what do you do? The same old lame marketing tactics that any decent Business Studies course will tell you, are doomed to failure.

You spend all your energy focussing on why folks shouldn’t use Windows, instead of telling them why they should be using free software. That kind of negative campaigning will never work.

You scream “but Windows crashes all the time!” and folk just say “Mmm .. XP has been running rock solid for me. I wonder what else they’re lying about?”

You scream “but there are billions of viruses for Windows!” and folk say “MMMmmm ... well there are millions of lethal viruses for humans, but like my XP box, I don’t have any.”

“You scream Microsoft is evil!” and folk say “Will you please shut up, I’m trying to play Halo”.

But my favourite tactic is the desperate back pedal.

For years, the anti-MS crowd has bleated on that Windows XP is bloated, bug-infested, insecure crash-happy mess. And now along comes Vista. With the prospect of the security argument going out the window (‘scuse me), they find they have nothing much left to throw, so what’s the best they can manage?

Stick with XP ... it’s good enough.

That really is extraordinarily lame. But hardly surprising since negative campaigning is all that seems to get used by the Anti-MS crowd these days. What’s wrong? Doesn’t free software have any merits worth talking about? Of course it does! So stop talking about MS and start talking about free software!

When I think of the number of times that I’ve tried to get a free package going with a client, only to have some smirking salesman point to a forum full of FOSS lunatics screaming about tearing down the walls of something or other ....

Y’know when Apple started winning?
Ipod? No.
Switch to Intel? No.

I’ll tell you. Apple started winning when Steve Jobs woke up and realised that Microsoft doesn’t have to lose, for Apple to win.

The iPods are a hit because they support Windows
Macs are winning because folk can run Windows on them if they want to.

If you see business as an battlefield with no flexibilty or compromise, then you will lose. It really is that simple.

Likewise, if you brand anyone who disagrees with you as a troll or a zealot, then that says to me that your platform cannot stand up to criticism; in which case, I’ll steer clear of it, because software that cannot be criticised, won’t improve fast enough for me.

Reply Score: 5

RE[3]: ...
by n4cer on Sat 16th Dec 2006 07:52 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: ..."
n4cer Member since:
2005-07-06

Rayz, if I had any votes left, you'd definitely get a +1.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: ...
by twenex on Sat 16th Dec 2006 10:57 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: ..."
twenex Member since:
2006-04-21

Microsoft is so hamstrung by legal troubles of its own making, FOSS has a clear path to compete and make real inroads on the desktop. But what do you do? The same old lame marketing tactics that any decent Business Studies course will tell you, are doomed to failure.

You spend all your energy focussing on why folks shouldn’t use Windows, instead of telling them why they should be using free software. That kind of negative campaigning will never work.

You scream “but Windows crashes all the time!” and folk just say “Mmm .. XP has been running rock solid for me. I wonder what else they’re lying about?”

You scream “but there are billions of viruses for Windows!” and folk say “MMMmmm ... well there are millions of lethal viruses for humans, but like my XP box, I don’t have any.”

[i]Yes, and we sit here wondering what useful feature MS Office has that OO.org supposedly doesn't.

[i]“You scream Microsoft is evil!” and folk say “Will you please shut up, I’m trying to play Halo”.

But my favourite tactic is the desperate back pedal.

For years, the anti-MS crowd has bleated on that Windows XP is bloated, bug-infested, insecure crash-happy mess. And now along comes Vista. With the prospect of the security argument going out the window (‘scuse me), they find they have nothing much left to throw, so what’s the best they can manage?

Stick with XP ... it’s good enough.


Good enough...if you're going to use Windows anyway.

Likewise, if you brand anyone who disagrees with you as a troll or a zealot, then that says to me that your platform cannot stand up to criticism

Yes, sounds a little like Windows users like NotParker. Not like many Linux users I know.

As for the rest, (especially since you don't see people like Torvalds, Cox or Tridgell posting on how MS software is crap on OSnews or other forums, anymore than you see people like Ballmer posting on how Linux users are lamers - oh wait, you do; nevermind), next time reduce RSI by simply typing:

"Blah".

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: ...
by djst on Sat 16th Dec 2006 12:31 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: ..."
djst Member since:
2005-08-07

You spend all your energy focussing on why folks shouldn’t use Windows, instead of telling them why they should be using free software. That kind of negative campaigning will never work.

You scream “but Windows crashes all the time!” and folk just say “Mmm .. XP has been running rock solid for me. I wonder what else they’re lying about?”

You scream “but there are billions of viruses for Windows!” and folk say “MMMmmm ... well there are millions of lethal viruses for humans, but like my XP box, I don’t have any.”

“You scream Microsoft is evil!” and folk say “Will you please shut up, I’m trying to play Halo”.


This is the best comment I've read on OSNews for a long time. If I could, I would have voted +1.

Edited 2006-12-16 12:32

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: ...
by archiesteel on Sat 16th Dec 2006 18:13 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: ..."
archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

Likewise, if you brand anyone who disagrees with you as a troll or a zealot, then that says to me that your platform cannot stand up to criticism; in which case, I’ll steer clear of it, because software that cannot be criticised, won’t improve fast enough for me.

Rayz, do you realize that, if you were really consistent with that philosophy of yours, you'd have to "steer clear" of Windows, if only because of NotParker, tomcat, and the like? These people will insult anyone who disagrees with them and dares to criticize Microsoft and/or Windows.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander. You have to stop using Windows now, or risk not being true to your own words.

That's okay, as you'll find that Linux should not only improve "fast enough" for you, it also improves a lot faster than Windows. Compare the evolution of the two over the same time period and you'll see. Right now, Vista and Linux are about on par...in two years' time, Linux will be well ahead of Windows, IMHO.

Edited 2006-12-16 18:14

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: ...
by b3timmons on Sat 16th Dec 2006 18:21 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: ..."
b3timmons Member since:
2006-08-26

"Well, if the FOSS community spent half as much energy on actually getting their apps as functional and as polished as most commercial Windows applications, as they do on attacking Microsoft, then you you wouldn’t need to launch desperate attention-seeking campaigns like this one."

How do you know? On the contrary, one could argue that a sufficient amount of exposure of Microsoft during its appeal of its loss to the DOJ might have resulted in its conviction holding, as it should have. Then it would have received more than a slap on the wrist, and the computing world would have advanced further today in a more competitive environment.

"Microsoft is so hamstrung by legal troubles of its own making, FOSS has a clear path to compete and make real inroads on the desktop. But what do you do? The same old lame marketing tactics that any decent Business Studies course will tell you, are doomed to failure."

Those legal troubles in part result from the opposition to Microsoft that you decry above. Such opposition deserves far more credit than you think. Regarding marketing, what about anti-smoking ads? According to you, such tactics are doomed to failure. The FSF realizes that "Vista" is a buzzword to computer illiterate people, and the FSF will be a tiny effort against the enormous hype machine. In any case, they could use improvements, and specific criticisms of BadVista.org are useful.

"For years, the anti-MS crowd has bleated on that Windows XP is bloated, bug-infested, insecure crash-happy mess. And now along comes Vista. With the prospect of the security argument going out the window (‘scuse me), they find they have nothing much left to throw, so what’s the best they can manage?

Stick with XP ... it’s good enough.
"

The caution and skepticism over Vista goes well beyond who you label as the "anti-MS crowd"; BadVista.org, boycottnovell.org, etc. will continue to point out those voices.

"If you see business as an battlefield with no flexibilty or compromise, then you will lose. It really is that simple."

Do you have any principles at all over which you will not compromise, such as treating people fairly? You will have to admit that you do. The FSF has a small set of principles and makes compromises all of the time as long as the principles are intact, such as during the entire GPLv3 license drafting process. But principles are what they are because they are not subject to compromise -- just consider the definition:

principle
n 1: a basic generalization that is accepted as true and that can be used as a basis for reasoning or conduct; "their principles of composition characterized all their works"

"Likewise, if you brand anyone who disagrees with you as a troll or a zealot, then that says to me that your platform cannot stand up to criticism; in which case, I’ll steer clear of it, because software that cannot be criticised, won’t improve fast enough for me."

This is yet another indication that your post was written in too much of a hurry. Suppose some random person Jack loves Microsoft software, and Jack brand all dissenters as trolls or zealots. By your reasoning, because Jack behaves this way, Microsoft software cannot stand up to criticism and you will steer clear of it.

Anyone who thinks about what you write will see it as fatally flawed, as I have shown. You can do better, and those who blindly agreed with your post can do a lot better.

P.S. Just to show that there are FSF supporters who recognize the failings of the FSF, I note the following. I think that the FSF gets too arrogant sometimes, but it is important to show how. I think they were too arrogant about the Hurd way back, and that if they had less arrogance they would have produced a better kernel. Another example is that sometimes in some of their speeches, they speculate too much that Microsoft will be much diminished, say, within a decade. I disagree, assuming that Microsoft changes their business model sufficiently. However, the occasional arrogance of the FSF in no way detracts from the principles they espouse.

On the other hand, many of us who disagree with Microsoft, do not hate it. We hate many of its practices, and we believe that it, in principle, could turn around one eventually and become everyone's favorite company. However, that remains just a hope tempered with a quite different expectation.

Reply Score: 4

RE: ...
by dylansmrjones on Fri 15th Dec 2006 22:56 UTC in reply to "..."
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

Well, I wonder what kind of software you used. Some proprietary applications do not yet have an open source counterpart, but most applications for BSD and Linux is clearly ahead of proprietary applications. There are some specialized areas that are yet to be supported.

But anything useful for Average Joe has applications every bit as good as proprietary applications or even better. I still lack something as good as AutoCAD but Average Joe doesn't use applications more complex than MineSweeper.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: ...
by Hiev on Fri 15th Dec 2006 23:02 UTC in reply to "RE: ..."
Hiev Member since:
2005-09-27

But anything useful for Average Joe has applications every bit as good as proprietary applications or even better.


The problen is that joe user uses youtube and many other basic applications that makes its use in Linux or BSB useless.

I don't think all the basic joe user needs are covered for Free Software yet but hey, that's just my opinion.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: ...
by ctl_alt_del on Fri 15th Dec 2006 23:26 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: ..."
ctl_alt_del Member since:
2006-05-14

So what are the "basic joe user needs" that aren't covered by open source alternatives?

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: ...
by dylansmrjones on Sat 16th Dec 2006 00:18 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: ..."
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

YouTube isn't an application, but a webservice. And it works fine on Linux.

BSB? I've no idea what BSB is.

What basic needs are left uncovered?

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: ...
by raynevandunem on Sat 16th Dec 2006 05:30 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: ..."
raynevandunem Member since:
2006-11-24

Yeah, let's run down the correlation of Flash + Linux + Youtube.

1) Adobe only released a Linux on x86 version of Flash 9 recently, and its still in beta version. They (Adobe and Macromedia) waited for something like two years since the previous Linux-x86 version (Flash 7) to release squat, and decided to skip Flash 8 for Linux-on-x86 altogether.

2) Adobe doesn't release a version of Flash 9 for Linux on x86-64, PPC, or any other hardware platform. So Linux-on-AMD users are SOL in regards to YouTube.

3) Let's not forget the lack of Flash (or any other of their) developer tools for Linux on *any* architecture, mind you.

Whoops!

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: ...
by dylansmrjones on Sat 16th Dec 2006 10:27 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: ..."
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

Well, YouTube worked fine some months ago with gentoo, firefox and flash 7.

On x86-64 it is possible to use the 32-bit version of flash9 if you have to use flash9. But you don't.

You obviously don't know what you are talking about. But when I look on the 9 posts, you have written so far, it is clear that you are not a pragmatic openminded person, but just another MS-apologist. Which is sad considering you claim you are a libertarian. The latter does however explain why we can agree on greenpeace ;)

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: ...
by raynevandunem on Sat 16th Dec 2006 16:21 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: ..."
raynevandunem Member since:
2006-11-24

And what's wrong with apologetics? What's wrong with defense? All I see is that people are *way* too happy to fire off cannons from their hovering ROFLcopters against any new news about Microsoft. Anyone who may say something nice about Microsoft is also fair game. Anyone who may even come to an amicable agreement with Microsoft (Novell) is dug into with a knife with pointed edges.

And what's worse is that those who fire the shots feel more than justified in their convictions concerning Microsoft.

Microsoft is a company with a great amount of capitalistic foresight into the future, who is willing to try out new things internally, and has a not-invented-here attitude that does not let them use solutions from third parties (even if they're standards), and forces them to come to their own conclusion; and they're willing to push their own products as much as possible, even if it hurts them or hurts others.

To me, that's the average company attitude. Every company that goes into any similar field to Microsoft will act the *exact same way*. Apple has done it throughout their history, with the killing of the Macintosh clones, for example.

Let's get this straight.

This runs directly counter to, and against the thinking of the Free Software movement. As long as its under a Free Software license, every developer is encouraged to stand on the shoulder of giants; Not-Invented-Here is heavily discouraged as detrimental to the Free software community (see "Compiz vs. Beryl", or "Torvalds' reaction to OpenSolaris"). It's less willing to try out new things because of both licensing issues and the belief that "Oh, that sh-t ain't needed. It's gonna cost us our freedom.", but when some company has made it big with some restrictively-licensed technology that has become standard across the board, someone within the community has to create their own reverse-engineering of that standard in order for its benefits to be shared with the community that, otherwise, would've been left out in the cold.

What's worse is that the Free Software community (not necessarily referring to its "leaders", but to many members) is much more keen to downplay and degrade the innovation of the companies (hell, it'll even downplay and degrade its own due to licensing issues, because the licensing is not "free enough". See "GPL vs. Sun's CDDL" or "Debian's issues with the GNU FDL").

Where the Free Software community collides with the Name-brand software company is when the latter decides to get some free labor or input from the former for a particular contingent of their overall star product that they can't take care of all by themselves. Apple does this with both Darwin (for Mac OS X) and WebKit (for Safari).

Where the Name-brand software company collides with the Free software community, however, is over the extent of freedom offered in the licensing of the Name-brand company's applications. Sun received flack over the years from the FSF and OSI over Java's licensing (Read RMS's "The Java Trap" and ESR's "Open Letter to Sun"), even though it was an open standard.

I advocate a particular Linux distribution (for which I even run a blog). I closely follow any news about anything *new* that's being developed for the Linux desktop.

However, this constant bickering by the Free Software community is getting old and repetitive, like a broken record. For them, there's no supplication by the Name-brand software companies of the world, the ones who have made everything that we see on our hardware and software, or set the standards for such. Their models and ways of logic run counter to each other, as different as night and day; we all know that, and we shouldn't have to hear it repeated to us every second.

I dunno, after hearing "x company is evil" so many times in a single day, I'm just jaded.

And yes, I'm Libertarian (and I'm 19). This was my first time voting last month, and I voted as much as possible for each Libertarian or Independent on the ballot. I have a statist streak, though.

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: ...
by twenex on Sat 16th Dec 2006 16:39 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: ..."
twenex Member since:
2006-04-21

I disagree. I think the amount of vitriol that comes from the proprietary computing industry in general, and Microsoft in particular, is way worse than in a lot of industries. Ballmer admitted as much when he announced the Novell deal. The only difference is, he and the FOSS community differ on whether he and MS have stopped it.

EDIT: The silence of anyone from MS on the "Linux violates MS IP" subject since the first time Ballmer mentioned it post-Novell, the fact that MS people reportedly keep avoiding questions related to the subject, suggest that perhaps someone at MS does realise how damaging it is.

Nevertheless, the "Linux violates MS IP" claims he made, without evidence, show that at the time, contrary to his further claims, MS (in the shape of its CEO) had [/i]not[/i] given up on such vitriol.

Or maybe they are just getting their proxies, like Cnet, to do the FUDspreading for them.

Like it or not, if you're going to be accused by someone of being a liar, a hypocrite, a communist, or anything else, you just can't let it stand, lest people think you aren't saying anything to counter the allegation because it is true. That's why people are prepared to sue for libel. It isn't that trash like THE SUN or THE NATIONAL ENQUIRER or THE DAILY MAIL are worth people's time and money; it's that their own reputations are.

Edited 2006-12-16 16:46

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: ...
by dylansmrjones on Sat 16th Dec 2006 17:12 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: ..."
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

There is nothing wrong with being apologetics to a certain extent. But when it comes to a complete and constant non-thinking apology, we have a problem.

I occasionally praise Microsoft - and I also bash them. The same goes for FSF and everybody else. There is always something good, and something not-so-good.

Your post is terribly long, and I'm just too tired to respond to all of it. But you are wrong in regard to accepting new ideas in FLOSS. FLOSS suffers no more from not-invented-here than Microsoft does. Just take a look at ODF-support in MS Office. Oh wait - it doesn't have such support. And that's a real standard, which Microsofts proprietary formats are not. They are merely de-facto standards, and only reverse-engineered as a temporary solution.


### off-topic ###
Oh no... a statist streak? You might want to do something about that ;)

Isn't it hard to find a libertarian to vote for?

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: ...
by w-ber on Sat 16th Dec 2006 11:46 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: ..."
w-ber Member since:
2005-08-21

If it's only YouTube you are worrying about:

http://www.arrakis.es/~rggi3/youtube-dl/

Reply Score: 1

RE: ...
by andrewg on Fri 15th Dec 2006 23:01 UTC in reply to "..."
andrewg Member since:
2005-07-06

I think from the FS point of view its more like MS is selling you coffee which smells delicious and fresh but is has some poison in it you don't know about. It makes more sense to tell you there is poison in the MS coffee than to try and get you to drink FSF coffee.

Also I don't think the Free Software Foundation is trying to sell anything or get you to use anything in particular they just want to promote free - according to their definition - software.

Edited 2006-12-15 23:15

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: ...
by Hiev on Fri 15th Dec 2006 23:05 UTC in reply to "RE: ..."
Hiev Member since:
2005-09-27

Promoting product A saying product B sucks is not a good Idea, is better to say product A is better than product B, the way FSF is promoting it self in my opinion is not the right one.

Reply Score: 4

RE: ...
by KenJackson on Sat 16th Dec 2006 00:03 UTC in reply to "..."
KenJackson Member since:
2005-07-18

...at least once I'd like to hear that I should use Free software because it has better quality...

OK, let me tell you. You should use free software because it has better quality.

Actually, I listed the reasons why I don't like windows, http://jackson.io/windows_explanation.html, and the reasons I like Linux, http://jackson.io/linux/#prefer_linux.

These are my attempts at specific itemizations. I even give a small salute to Bill Gates in the former.

Reply Score: 3

RE: ... (the hidden directory)
by glarepate on Sat 16th Dec 2006 02:05 UTC in reply to "..."
glarepate Member since:
2006-01-04

in my case the alternatives I've used in Linux to the software I use in Windows is just pathetic.

This is a fairly common comment in discussion forums such as ZDNet. What is fairly consistently lacking, but not universally missing, is one or more examples of what was tried and found wanting unless the discussion is about a specific application, i.e. Office vs OOo.

Do you have some experiences to offer or just a generic line about software rejection that resulted in pathos?

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: ... (the hidden directory)
by Rayz on Sat 16th Dec 2006 07:31 UTC in reply to "RE: ... (the hidden directory)"
Rayz Member since:
2006-06-24

Well, in my experience, it just crashed a lot. But on the plus side, I never had any files trashed when it did, which I sometimes get with Word. So although it crashed a lot more than Office, it wasn't as painfully annoying when it did.

The only other problem was that the 5% of MS Office that it didn't do, always seemed to be the 5% that I needed. I also found it was much harder to get the formatting as neat as I'd like.

Another Plus: Cost me the price of a download to try out, so there really isn't any excuse for anyone not to at least give it a try.
Didn't suit me, but I'll look again ...

Reply Score: 2

Microsoft and Windows
by acobar on Fri 15th Dec 2006 22:49 UTC
acobar
Member since:
2005-11-15

There are some people that just close their eyes and pretend that everything is just "business as usual". This is a whole lie.

People don' t have a distaste about MS because it is a big company or because it sells very well their products. They have a profound dislike about Microsoft because their huge record of bad business practice, abusing of its market position to kill everyone else. Do you remember BeOS? Do you know MS pressed hardware computers companies to not pre-install it even in a dual boot configuration? Even Linux/BSD got that. Remember JVM? Novell? Do you know Microsoft refuses to cooperate on many fields related to interoperability between different platforms?

Yes, they get punished, but it was a drop in the ocean in face of what they got. So, "get the facts straight" before, please. Or do you forget that MS also did this kind of campaign against Linux?

I like Windows 2k and have it installed on one of my machines, I even like XP, but first of all, none of us use Windows because we like it more than anything else but because the applications we need runs on it and Microsoft is partially guilt of it too, or you do you ignore the Corel deal?

Maybe, Microsoft is finally changing but, once trapped you start to watch your steps don't you?

Reply Score: 5

RE: Microsoft and Windows
by tomcat on Sat 16th Dec 2006 06:47 UTC in reply to "Microsoft and Windows"
tomcat Member since:
2006-01-06

Dude, you're talking about events that occurred over a decade ago. How much time has to pass before you let it go? IBM collaborated with the Nazis during WWII and, yet, I don't see F/OSS proponents rejecting IBM's kernel submissions. Which is worse? Get some perspective.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Microsoft and Windows
by twenex on Sat 16th Dec 2006 14:04 UTC in reply to "RE: Microsoft and Windows"
twenex Member since:
2006-04-21

Dude, you're talking about events that occurred over a decade ago. How much time has to pass before you let it go? IBM collaborated with the Nazis during WWII and, yet, I don't see F/OSS proponents rejecting IBM's kernel submissions. Which is worse? Get some perspective.

FYI, neither IBM or Germany is run by the same people - or even the same type of people - who were running IBM or Germany in the years before and during WWII.

Microsoft, OTOH, is still run by some of the same people who trashed OS/2, BeOS, Java, etc. As for the rest of them, until I see evidence that "MS has changed", I won't believe that the other people who have come in are not the same kind of people.

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: Microsoft and Windows
by tomcat on Sat 16th Dec 2006 18:43 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Microsoft and Windows"
tomcat Member since:
2006-01-06

FYI, neither IBM or Germany is run by the same people - or even the same type of people - who were running IBM or Germany in the years before and during WWII.

You weren't complaining about that. You were complaining about their "huge record of bad business practice". IBM clearly has a bad record in collaborating with Nazis -- and yet you give them a pass. Your hypocrisy is in plain view right now. You're willing to give IBM a pass, even though their hardware was used to catalog Jews for extermination in Nazi death camps. Nice perspective you have there. It highlights how out of touch with reality you F/OSS dweebs are.

Microsoft, OTOH, is still run by some of the same people who trashed OS/2, BeOS, Java, etc. As for the rest of them, until I see evidence that "MS has changed", I won't believe that the other people who have come in are not the same kind of people.

Microsoft has been punished for all of the events that you cite, many of which occurred over a decade ago. But apparently that isn't good enough for you. Consider: Microsoft has anti-trust watchdogs on its ass, as a result, so you can't even cite a single example since that time which corroborates your lamer conspiracy theories.

Reply Score: 0

RE[4]: Microsoft and Windows
by twenex on Sat 16th Dec 2006 18:46 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Microsoft and Windows"
twenex Member since:
2006-04-21

You weren't complaining about that. You were complaining about their "huge record of bad business practice". IBM clearly has a bad record in collaborating with Nazis -- and yet you give them a pass. Your hypocrisy is in plain view right now. You're willing to give IBM a pass, even though their hardware was used to catalog Jews for extermination in Nazi death camps. Nice perspective you have there. It highlights how out of touch with reality you F/OSS dweebs are.

Oh, yeah, Jews are some of the worst Holocaust-deniers.

If you can't get it into your head that ibm's nazi dealings are 50 YEARS AGO, it's not my job to try and make you.

Reply Score: 2

v RE[5]: Microsoft and Windows
by tomcat on Sun 17th Dec 2006 22:39 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Microsoft and Windows"
RE[6]: Microsoft and Windows
by twenex on Sun 17th Dec 2006 22:43 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Microsoft and Windows"
twenex Member since:
2006-04-21

Oh, yeah, Jews are some of the worst Holocaust-deniers.

Don't get anti-Semitic on us.


You apparently don't grok sarcasm.

If you can't get it into your head that ibm's nazi dealings are 50 YEARS AGO, it's not my job to try and make you.

The point still stands. The behavior you complained about regarding Microsoft happened over 10 YEARS AGO. What is the magic amount of time that has to pass before you let it go?


The point does not stand. The examples I quoted may have been over 10 years old, but the behaviour I am complaining about is STILL HAPPENING. What are the magic words I have to say before you get this into your head?

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Microsoft and Windows
by Barnabyh on Sat 16th Dec 2006 19:05 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Microsoft and Windows"
Barnabyh Member since:
2006-02-06

>>IBM clearly has a bad record in collaborating with Nazis -- and yet you give them a pass. Your hypocrisy is in plain view right now.
You're willing to give IBM a pass, even though their hardware was used to catalog Jews for extermination in Nazi death camps. Nice perspective you have there.<<

Given how emotionally laden this subject still is it looks like blackmail to me. Is this what you have to resort to to try discredit your imaginary 'opponents' in discussion?

There is however a huge difference:

IBM were not in control of what their hardware was being used for and were learning this relatively late. As far as I remember from a TV documentary it was claimed they were told in something like 1937 but that letter proved to be forged.
MS on the other hand are very much in charge of their software and hardware and the very problem with them is, at least for a lot of people here (not claiming for everybody) that they are too restrictive in what it can be used for and how.

Edit:
Plus of course, to come back to the original point, MS's bad practices are not even a decade old (IE4 integration in Win98) and still going on. It is still run by, at least in part, the same people who seem to care more about money and market share than reputation. They will only learn when they start loosing both.
IBM's problem, well that's more than 60 years now... nuff said. The people in charge then are probably all dead.

Edited 2006-12-16 19:19

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Microsoft and Windows
by archiesteel on Sat 16th Dec 2006 20:44 UTC in reply to "RE: Microsoft and Windows"
archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

Dude, you're talking about events that occurred over a decade ago. How much time has to pass before you let it go? IBM collaborated with the Nazis during WWII and, yet, I don't see F/OSS proponents rejecting IBM's kernel submissions.

Notwithstanding the fact that you basically godwinned the thread here, I'll repeat a point others have said: in the case of IBM it happened around 60 to 70 years ago. The people in charge then are no longer in charge now. Most of them are dead. Computing as it existed then no longer exists now. Volkswagen is no longer an extension of the Nazi party. IG Farben no longer makes cyanide gas for the extermination camps. It's gone (though we should never forget it).

In the case of Microsoft, this happened a mere decade ago. Most of the people in charge then are still in charge now. Moreover, Microsoft is *still* trying to maintain/extend its quasi-monopolies. It only received a couple of slaps on the wrists for its illegal behavior. This only encouraged it to try to corner other markets, such as anti-Virus and security software.

Your mention of IBM's shameful past is not only irrelevant, it is also incredibly offensive. By using the plight of those who suffered through the Shoah to try to score points in this debate (and not-so-subtly attempt to link FOSS advocates to Nazi sympathizers), you have cheapened the memory of these terrible events. You should be ashamed of yourself, though I doubt that someone as cynical and anti-social as you can feel shame.

Nonetheless, I respectfully ask you to refrain from using the Holocaust as a way of scoring debate points in the future, out of common human decency.

Reply Score: 5

RE[3]: Microsoft and Windows
by b3timmons on Sat 16th Dec 2006 20:59 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Microsoft and Windows"
b3timmons Member since:
2006-08-26

"Notwithstanding the fact that you basically godwinned the thread here, I'll repeat a point others have said: in the case of IBM it happened around 60 to 70 years ago. The people in charge then are no longer in charge now. Most of them are dead. Computing as it existed then no longer exists now. Volkswagen is no longer an extension of the Nazi party. IG Farben no longer makes cyanide gas for the extermination camps. It's gone (though we should never forget it)."

Indeed, we should never forget, and we should use this kind of poison from NonParker for some good.

The whole IBM-Nazi connection is yet another reason why everyone should run out and watch "The Corporation" documentary, which goes over this connection and several other examples of the inevitably destructive behaviors of corporations. The value of the film is that it forces its viewers to get up off their damn couch and not take the growing dominance of corporations for granted. In turn, people will more responsibly evaluate the technological developments that corporations (and governments) naturally wish to exploit in order to control people.

Viewers of that film will never look at TC/DRM/DMCA the same way again, and will consider how free software is central to the checks and balances on corporate and governmental authorities.

Edited 2006-12-16 21:04

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Microsoft and Windows
by archiesteel on Sat 16th Dec 2006 21:42 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Microsoft and Windows"
archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

I agree that the Corporation is one of the most important documentaries to have been made in the recent years. The really interesting thing about it is how so much of the testimonies come from actual CEOs and businessmen in addition to the usual critics of the modern corporatocracy (such as Chomsky).

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: Microsoft and Windows
by Barnabyh on Sat 16th Dec 2006 21:36 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Microsoft and Windows"
Barnabyh Member since:
2006-02-06

>> (and not-so-subtly attempt to link FOSS advocates to Nazi sympathizers)<<

Here we have so-called FOSS sympathizers, Linux/BSD users or just advocates of a free, fair and transparent society in general likened to cultists, communists, and now linked to Nazis.
Talking about hysteria. McCarthy anyone? The proprietary advocates must truly be getting desperate.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Microsoft and Windows @ tomcat
by acobar on Sat 16th Dec 2006 22:30 UTC in reply to "RE: Microsoft and Windows"
acobar Member since:
2005-11-15

Look, my point when I made the post was less about "see, Microsoft is bad now because they were just a couple of years ago" and more to remember some guys why a lot of people have a profound distaste for them. Fact is, they are almost a monopoly and they got caught many times abusing of their position. Because of this many prefer to be careful when dealing with them.

I would not go so far as you on history, even though we know how important is remember what happened, even more when we see it repeating itself over and over again.

As many pointed out MS kept using its tactics, as you can check by yourself in face of the near past happenings (not giving information about protocols and OS internals to competitors).

Maybe, you could say "Why MS have to give insights to others so that they can better compete? It is MS technology! It is not their interest!". Had you said that and we would have to to go a bit far from the intention of my post and I bet you know the answer: modern capitalism system <-> incentives to competition => improvement on citizens benefits.

Also, I have to say that I have a great sympathy to F/OSS movement and try to support them whenever possible. Sure, I would not go so far as FSF on their positions about proprietary software, it is a sweet utopia to expect that all software be free, but I'm very glad they exist and have a kind of admiration for their strong concerns about our freedom, rights and fair use.

Finally, lets not forget also that, contrary to what many here said, things don't get favored only because of technical merits, that is a big lie, politics are always on the field and we should better acknowledge this and take a position, even if it is not strong sided.

Reply Score: 2

v Lets summarize
by NotParker on Fri 15th Dec 2006 23:06 UTC
RE: Lets summarize
by twenex on Fri 15th Dec 2006 23:15 UTC in reply to "Lets summarize"
twenex Member since:
2006-04-21

Did I get it all right?

Virtually if not totally wrong, actually.

"Let's look at the evidence" as someone is fond of saying.

You are a troll if you continually post insulting and derisory comments on every topic not related to your OS du fanboi.

Topics extolling a campaign to educate users on the problem of DRM in Microsoft Vista should never be trolled by anyone.

Violence is never suggested against people who simply defend MS, not always suggested against trolls, and never in a way which makes the educationally-normal readers of OSnews think such threats are serious.

Despite thousands and thousands of comments that express support for the FSF campaign to educate users about Microsoft software (not "eradicate Microsoft" as your hallucinogenic drugs are suggesting), none of the FOSS supporters actually hate Microsoft *for non-existent or bullshit reasons*

People who like Microsoft software should, like everyone else, confine themselves to pointing out what it does well without insulting and questioning the intelligence of those who disagree.

Reply Score: 5

v RE[2]: Lets summarize
by NotParker on Sat 16th Dec 2006 00:28 UTC in reply to "RE: Lets summarize"
RE[3]: Lets summarize
by JeffS on Sat 16th Dec 2006 01:00 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Lets summarize"
JeffS Member since:
2005-07-12

What Linux / FOSS does well for me:

1. Runs very efficiently
2. It's very stable
3. It's very secure
4. It installs very very easily
5. It's very easy to configure
6. I don't get spyware, adware, or other malware
7. I have instant access to thousands of great applications
8. I have full "fair use" rights. I can install a Linux distro on as many machines as I want. I can share it with a friend. I can look at source code and make changes as needed/desired.
9. I can configure the system, and tweak the desktop (KDE, Gnome, Xfce, etc) to my hearts content, to make the system fit my needs/desires exactly.
10. It's free, as in beer, and as in freedom
11. I can try a plethora of distros, or different versions of software, to find the one that suits me best.
12. It runs great on old or modest hardware, and still remains full featured, with plenty of eye candy. This is especially true of well optimized distros.

... and this list can go on and on.

What I don't like about Windows

1. It's bloated and resource hungry. Windows uses way more resources, and runs much more slowly, than Linux, on exact same hardware.
2. It's very insecure. Yes, you can lock it down with implementing a firewall, logging in as a non-admin account, with a password, using anti virus, etc etc. But you can still get hosed. I've done all those things on our Windows machine at home, but I can't stop everything. My 4 year old daughter plays online Disney, Dora, Wiggles, etc etc games, and that stuff manages to transport all kinds of nasty adware, spyware, and trojans. I have to do regular repair/clean up.
3. Licensing is completely ridiculous. XP activation is a pain, and can bite you if you upgrade a hard drive or cpu or motherboard or something. Also, it restricts fair use. If I pay $200-$300 for it, I should be able to install it on multiple PCs if I have them, or loan it to a friend.
4. While some MS stuff is good, too many programs have bad feature bloat, or are over-engineered. MS Word, and Outlook, are classic examples. The default configurations, and various features, just simply get in my way, and seem to fight me. I find OSS equivalents to be simpler and more intuitive and more pleasant.
5. I don't like spending money on a product that is produced by a corporation that continually breaks the law, is a convicted monopolist, funds proxy attacks on competitors (SCO), and uses constant FUD. Really, their business tactics are almost mafia like. Whatever happened to just producing really good products that people really like and want to buy, and then market them by simply touting their features/benefits. But no, MS has to break the law, spread fear, uncertainty and doubt, and continually leverage it's hegemonic monopoly power. It just leaves a bad taste in the mouths of decent people.
6. DRM - way too damn much of it in Windows
7. Windows Genuine Advantage. Sure, I don't blame them for not wanting to give updates to those who have pirated Windows. But there are way too many false positives. Plus, those who want to pirate, will always crack such schemes. It just becomes a huge annoyance to honest paying customers.
8. It's unstable. Yup, Windows has improved immensely in this department. But I still get lock ups, crashes, BSOD's. It's all that GUI integration into the kernel. It's IE integrated into the OS. It's the friggin registry, a bloated, unstable, over complicated mess. Even the most ardent of MS supporters absolutely detest the registry.

There you have it. No insults. Just expressing my opinions about two different operating systems (and software that goes with them), and why I like one and why I dislike the other.

Of course, I'm sure some will still say I'm a zealot of something. Oh well.

Reply Score: 5

RE[4]: Lets summarize
by KenJackson on Sat 16th Dec 2006 01:12 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Lets summarize"
KenJackson Member since:
2005-07-18

Very good. And a careful analysis of your lists shows you are mostly reciting examples from your own experience ("I have...", "I don't get...", ...), not a some party line that you've been taught.

You don't sound like a cultist or zealot to me.

Reply Score: 2

Fruitless barking
by nedvis on Sat 16th Dec 2006 01:48 UTC in reply to "Lets summarize"
nedvis Member since:
2006-01-02

"Violence should always be suggested if someone defending Microsoft won't shut up and go away when FOSS zealots come to the defense of an organization dedicated to the destruction of Microsoft."

Dear NotParker,
where did you find FSF.org is an "organization dedicated to the destruction of Microsoft."?
Don't you think then all free software coders are bound to destroy evil Redmond empire? How would you explain their efforts to make free software for non-free platform.
I found your adoration of magnum Microsoft opus has grown to the point where it's getting pure immoderate attachment and ardent devotion making you feeling that anything coming as an alternative to it is an attack to
your idolatry and yourself.
Remember, barking around the block that you're the first (or last) Microsoft defense line is fruitless.
Give yourself favor and stop making me thinking you're just one more candidate for one of better sanatoriums.

Sorry to tell you OSnews editorial staff I'm not longer
convinced your WEB site is a good place for constructive opinion exchange.

Good bye

Reply Score: 2

RE: Lets summarize
by Marcellus on Sat 16th Dec 2006 09:02 UTC in reply to "Lets summarize"
Marcellus Member since:
2005-08-26

Sounds about right to me.
Other than the occasional spelling error.

To OSNews mods:
Please add a way to filter out slashdotters from the forums.

Reply Score: 3

FSF does not single out Microsoft itself
by b3timmons on Fri 15th Dec 2006 23:18 UTC
b3timmons
Member since:
2006-08-26

Here the FSF says not to single out Microsoft:
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/microsoft.html

Why, just today the FSF lawyer and the SFLC filed a brief on Microsoft's side versus AT&T in an appeal before the Supreme Court:
http://lwn.net/Articles/214421/

The FSF opposes nonfree software, and Microsoft just happens to be the company pushing it the most. It's as simple as that. Fortunately, Microsoft is realizing there are other business models. Unfortunately, it will be tough to turn such a behemoth around.

Reply Score: 5

v Why people hate FSF ?
by trenchsol on Sat 16th Dec 2006 00:26 UTC
RE: Why people hate FSF ?
by b3timmons on Sat 16th Dec 2006 00:46 UTC in reply to "Why people hate FSF ?"
b3timmons Member since:
2006-08-26

"Well, now we can see why. How dare they questioning decisions, preferences and choices of other people. That is unacceptable. "

If we follow your logic, nothing could be questioned, since anything could be a decision, preference, or choice of people. For example, questioning lying or bad diets is unacceptable.

"Next time, when someone calls me a GNU hater, I will take it as a compliment. Because I do hate them. deeply. Because they are boring, annoying and aggressive."

Why be hateful? Life's too short, dude.

Reply Score: 2

Okay, this is just silly now
by tristan on Sat 16th Dec 2006 00:37 UTC
tristan
Member since:
2006-02-01

It can be refreshing to hear a dissenting voice. It can change your mind, or think about something a different way, or just reinforce the opinion that you were right all along. If NotParker was just a dissenting voice against Linux/Firefox (which seem to be his two main points of contention), then I don't think anyone would have a problem with him.

In fact, when NotParker would just challenge a pro-OSS poster to back up rhetoric with figures, or occasionally produce evidence that contradicted what another poster said, I viewed him as an asset to this site. People -- whatever side of an argument they happen to fall -- should, after all, be prepared to show evidence for "facts" they proclaim.

The trouble is that in recent weeks NotParker has gone far beyond this role, and seems to have taken the position that he will just attack Linux and FOSS regardless of what the actual topic actually concerns. No pro-Linux article, for example, seems to be allowed to pass without him pointing out that website that suggests 0.4% of browser user-agents report they are running on Linux -- clearly the intention is to show that "Linux doesn't matter 'cos nobody uses it". And maybe that's true, or maybe it's not, but it doesn't matter: this is OSNews. If Linux doesn't matter, then what of Zeta and SkyOS and Haiku and AROS and RiscOS and all the other minority operating systems out there, who would love to have Linux's installed base?

Bringing up irrelevant arguments just to try and wind people up is called trolling. If I were to pop into a Mac thread and, completely out of context, say "I think that dragging a CD onto the delete icon to burn it is the stupidest UI in the world", or "Macs are crap, they only have one mouse-button!", I would quite rightly be modded down for trolling, however true those things are (N.B. yes, I know about the Mighty Mouse now). What NotParker does on Linux-related threads is exactly the same.

Take, for example, the article about Samba and Windows Vista that was posted last night. NotParker first posted a comment that ran [paraphrasing, but you can look it up for yourself], "what's the point of spending 15 years writing something to copy Microsoft", and "FOSS developers only came up with Samba because they're too stupid to think up something better". This is trolling, pure and simple.

(Of course, the responses in this thread, wishing violence to be visited upon NP, were utterly deplorable, and I'm amazed Thom didn't wield the Big Banning Stick in the posters' direction: in his position, I certainly would have.)

NotParker's constant name-calling -- "cultists" and "fanatics" and so forth -- is also tiresome and childish, and ought to stop.

Okay, so this post has become rather over-long, and I apologise. But to boil it down, what I'm trying to say is this: NotParker's constant trolling of Linux articles, and the (frequently over-the-top and emotive) responses are dragging this site down. It's certainly putting me off, and I can't be the only one.

I would implore Thom, Eugenia and the others to take a firm stand. Off-topic posts* -- and ALL responses to them -- should be swiftly deleted. Blatant cases of trolling should be met with a written warning followed by a temporary removal of posting rights. Then, hopefully, we can get back to actually talking about news about operating systems, rather than having to read through pages and pages about "cultists" and so on.

Just my thoughts: apologies for the length of this post.




* off-topic posts except this on, obviously!

Reply Score: 5

RE: Okay, this is just silly now
by Hiev on Sat 16th Dec 2006 00:47 UTC in reply to "Okay, this is just silly now"
Hiev Member since:
2005-09-27

NotParker's constant name-calling -- "cultists" and "fanatics" and so forth -- is also tiresome and childish, and ought to stop.

If that's the case I sugest twenex get banned too since he have been calling some people stupid w/o a reason, please lets not get hypocrital here, insults are from both sides.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Okay, this is just silly now
by twenex on Sat 16th Dec 2006 11:13 UTC in reply to "RE: Okay, this is just silly now"
twenex Member since:
2006-04-21

sugest twenex get banned too since he have been calling some people stupid w/o a reason,

Like whom?

Reply Score: 1

raynevandunem Member since:
2006-11-24

http://osnews.com/permalink.php?news_id=16737&comment_id=193164

Of course, you didn't call him stupid. You just called him an asshat.

Reply Score: 1

twenex Member since:
2006-04-21

That was after you posted that comment.

And there is a reason, contrary to your claim. The reason being, he's an inveterate troll.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Okay, this is just silly now
by fsckit on Sat 16th Dec 2006 01:30 UTC in reply to "Okay, this is just silly now"
fsckit Member since:
2006-09-24

Fully agreed. The only issue is, that if you look further up in this thread (and just about every comment Thom has ever posted) he's nearly as big a troll as NotParker. He also feels some need to defend NotParker's actions

I'm sorry, we don't ban easily, and extremely impolite he has not been.


@Thom
Really? Because I think anyone on this site who has been harassed, called a cultist, terrorist or member of the taliban, or have had to waste their mod points and time trying to keep the signal:noise ratio sane, would highly disagree with you.

Reply Score: 3

restrictive?
by Morin on Sat 16th Dec 2006 00:48 UTC
Morin
Member since:
2005-12-31

> Obviously MS Windows is already proprietary and very
> restrictive

And this campaign is going to do what? Make it less so? Inform Joe User about it?

I have some nice, uncomfortable news for you: Joe User does not mind that it is proprietary, because he thinks it is MS's right to make money with it. Any arguments that you can make money with F/OSS are moot: First, only a few companies actually make a living out of F/OSS, compared to MS making *billions* - if anything, Joe will count it as a sign of jealousy of the F/OSS camp because they will never see billions of dollars. Secondly, if Joe User ever gets to know that you can make money out of F/OSS, he will accept it as a possible business model, alongside with proprietary software being another one.

And restrictive? Joe do a lot with his computer. He can't do everything. Will he get over it? Probably, because he has a life. Are there any alternatives? So far, Joe is actually *MORE* restricted with the F/OSS solution #1, Linux, because he can't run all his applications, use all his hardware, open all his documents.

The advice I can really give here is: Stop whining; stop the view distortion on Windows; try to actually understand Joe's point of view; and finally build a better product than Windows. Then Joe will come by himself. Apple did exactly that, and what I currently see, I can only describe as a mass takeoff of Apple products.

And honestly, the #1 thing I would like to see on the OS market is a mass takeoff of Linux.

Reply Score: 2

RE: restrictive?
by twenex on Sat 16th Dec 2006 11:49 UTC in reply to "restrictive?"
twenex Member since:
2006-04-21


And this campaign is going to do what? Make it less so? Inform Joe User about it?


Why wouldn't it?

I have some nice, uncomfortable news for you:

Nice AND uncomfortable? Contradiction in terms.

Joe User does not mind that it is proprietary, because he thinks it is MS's right to make money with it.

FOSS software is NOT about free as in price, as you demonstrate you know, and despite your assertion that:

First, only a few companies actually make a living out of F/OSS,

Only a few companies outside Microsoft now actually make a living out of proprietary software. Your point?

Any arguments that you can make money with F/OSS are moot:

Right. "your argument is wrong, because it's not mine".

Secondly, if Joe User ever gets to know that you can make money out of F/OSS, he will accept it as a possible business model, alongside with proprietary software being another one.

How many Joe Users actually think to themselves, Gee, anyone making software outside of Microsoft is not indulging in a "possible business model"?

Jow User would be a lot better off if people like you would stop feeding him tripe like "you can't make money with foss, you can't make money with foss, you can't..."

And restrictive? Joe do a lot with his computer. He can't do everything.

It's about more than computers. I already have CD's that won't play in car stereos. Ever heard of anyone pirating music on a car stereo?

Will he get over it? Probably, because he has a life.

How come Linux users get modded down for pointing out the flaws in MS software, and Windows trolls get modded up for insinuating (or just plain stating) that Linux users have no life, are communists, are cultists, etc.?

More to the point, do Windows trolls think that doing this is going to make Linux users take them seriously?

Are there any alternatives? So far, Joe is actually *MORE* restricted with the F/OSS solution #1, Linux, because he can't run all his applications, use all his hardware, open all his documents.

I guess you never heard of VMware, Wine, Parallels, Crossover Office, Xen, VirtualPC...

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: restrictive?
by raynevandunem on Sat 16th Dec 2006 16:34 UTC in reply to "RE: restrictive?"
raynevandunem Member since:
2006-11-24

How come Linux users get modded down for pointing out the flaws in MS software, and Windows trolls get modded up for insinuating (or just plain stating) that Linux users have no life, are communists, are cultists, etc.?

Last time I saw a Windows troll (NotParker) insinuate that, he was buried -3 feet under.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: restrictive?
by Morin on Sat 16th Dec 2006 19:07 UTC in reply to "RE: restrictive?"
Morin Member since:
2005-12-31

> FOSS software is NOT about free as in price, as you demonstrate you
> know, and despite your assertion that:
>
> > First, only a few companies actually make a living out of F/OSS,
>
> Only a few companies outside Microsoft now actually make a living out
> of proprietary software. Your point?

How many average people *know* that F/OSS is not meant to be about price? Especially considering the unfortunate double meaning of "free".

How many average people agree that it is *in fact* not about price, seeing no company make a fortune out of F/OSS?

And no, MS is not the only company making a living out of proprietary software.

> How many Joe Users actually think to themselves, Gee, anyone
> making software outside of Microsoft is not indulging in a "possible
> business model"?

I think there's a misunderstanding here, but since business models are only secondary I think we can leave this out. What I wanted to say can probably be summarized to: The main thing Joe sees is that the FSF, working together with software makers who barely earn money from their software, are trying to tell MS what to do, a company who make billions from software. You can call that "insane" or "balls of steel", depending whether you agree with them. Point is, Joe User usually doesn't agree that proprietary software is ethically wrong.

> Jow User would be a lot better off if people like you would stop
> feeding him tripe like "you can't make money with foss, you can't
> make money with foss, you can't..."

Yeah right, so I'm the scapegoat now? You mentioned an interesting point, but before I counter this argument properly, you'll have to prove your accusation that *I* am feeding Joe with such nonsense. I'm sorry, but you wanted it that way.

> I already have CD's that won't play in car stereos. Ever heard of
> anyone pirating music on a car stereo?

"Piracy" is something the average users don't agree about. Practically all users agree that a player that doesn't play an intact CD can be considered broken. However, they don't see (nor do I) the connection to "restrictions" in Windows Vista. Maybe you could explain this?

> How come Linux users get modded down for pointing out the flaws
> in MS software, and Windows trolls get modded up for insinuating
> (or just plain stating) that Linux users have no life, are communists,
> are cultists, etc.?

First of all, you should consider that I *NEVER* mod anyone down, not even idiots like NotParker or Moulinneuf. In fact, as far as I'm concerned, the Mod-System can be abandoned. Second, I know as well as you do that people with and without lives exist among the Windows users as well as among the Linux users, as do they among the F/OSS camp, or any other sufficiently big group of people.

I understand that what I said could have been misunderstood as claiming that F/OSS supporters have no life. I apologize for the confusion, and to clear this, I consider myself to be a F/OSS supporter too. What I wanted to say is that Joe User (by definition) has a life, and in most cases values many other things higher than computer-related issues. Those that are interested in technology are so for technological reasons, and would not understand what F/OSS has to do with ethics.

> More to the point, do Windows trolls think that doing this is going to
> make Linux users take them seriously?

People that do so are, as you pointed out, trolls. They are not interested in being taken seriously.

> I guess you never heard of VMware, Wine, Parallels, Crossover Office,
> Xen, VirtualPC...

VMWare, Parallels (and I guess also Xen and VirtualPC, although I never used them) are bad solutions to a problem. Joe User doesn't want to have troubles with his computer, and the last thing to about trouble is having to maintain *TWO* operating systems at once.

Wine / XO are better solutions, but last time I tried Wine, it crashed on all applications I tried. You can be sure that once Wine runs flawlessly, I will not recommend any average user to use Windows over Linux again.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: restrictive?
by twenex on Sat 16th Dec 2006 19:30 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: restrictive?"
twenex Member since:
2006-04-21

How many average people *know* that F/OSS is not meant to be about price? Especially considering the unfortunate double meaning of "free".

I don't see how that's relevant. How many average people *know* that software is compiled? Does that make Windows a bad product, because it is?

At least 50% of my FOSS advocacy time is spent pointing ot that FOSS != $0. So hopefully lots of people know, who otherwise wouldn't.


How many average people agree that it is *in fact* not about price, seeing no company make a fortune out of F/OSS?


Except RedHat, apparently.


And no, MS is not the only company making a living out of proprietary software.


They have been and probably are doing their damnedest to make sure they will be. Only MS shills claim that FOSS supporters are on a jihad, or that it is solely against MS.

I think there's a misunderstanding here, but since business models are only secondary I think we can leave this out. What I wanted to say can probably be summarized to: The main thing Joe sees is that the FSF, working together with software makers who barely earn money from their software, are trying to tell MS what to do, a company who make billions from software. You can call that "insane" or "balls of steel", depending whether you agree with them. Point is, Joe User usually doesn't agree that proprietary software is ethically wrong.

If Joe User can't see it is wrong for a single company to lock out all the others, then that's somethign else we'll have to explain, I suppose.

That's the only solution proprietary softweare offers to avoid the Balkanisation of software.

Yeah right, so I'm the scapegoat now? You mentioned an interesting point, but before I counter this argument properly, you'll have to prove your accusation that *I* am feeding Joe with such nonsense. I'm sorry, but you wanted it that way.

Very well. Gladly:

Morin: Any arguments that you can make money with F/OSS are moot


"Piracy" is something the average users don't agree about. Practically all users agree that a player that doesn't play an intact CD can be considered broken. However, they don't see (nor do I) the connection to "restrictions" in Windows Vista. Maybe you could explain this?


The restrictions which prevent playing in car stereos are exactly the type of thing DRM was created to impose.

[Sorry for the long quote, but for context]
> How come Linux users get modded down for pointing out the flaws
> in MS software, and Windows trolls get modded up for insinuating
> (or just plain stating) that Linux users have no life, are communists,
> are cultists, etc.?

First of all, you should consider that I *NEVER* mod anyone down, not even idiots like NotParker or Moulinneuf. In fact, as far as I'm concerned, the Mod-System can be abandoned. Second, I know as well as you do that people with and without lives exist among the Windows users as well as among the Linux users, as do they among the F/OSS camp, or any other sufficiently big group of people.

I understand that what I said could have been misunderstood as claiming that F/OSS supporters have no life. I apologize for the confusion,


Apology accepted.

What I wanted to say is that Joe User (by definition) has a life, and in most cases values many other things higher than computer-related issues. Those that are interested in technology are so for technological reasons, and would not understand what F/OSS has to do with ethics.

It's a tired argument, but I think it's valid: Joe User doesn't value democracy - whether in a democracy or a dictatorship, only a small percentage of the population are politically active. Nevertheless, I believe the benefits of democracy/FOSS to Joe User are worth the efforts of the small percentage, and the consequences of dictatorship/misuse of proprietary software bad enough to worry about.

It's not DRM or closed source software in principle I object to; it's the fact that people use them to take away what I consider inalienable rights (the freedom to play a CD on whatever equipment or OS I choose, the freedom to open a file in, and use, whatever word processor I choose, etc.) These may sound like unimportant issues, but the US and UK are supposed to be free market democracies. If you don't have the right to say "Bush sucks" or "Bush rules", or use the word processor YOU want, or listen to obscure Finnish folk groups at volumes levels that aren't quite anti-social, or bring out a new software product without fear of not being able to compete with the Juggernaut, then it's neither a democracy nor a free market.

Reply Score: 4

RE[4]: restrictive?
by Morin on Sun 17th Dec 2006 21:04 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: restrictive?"
Morin Member since:
2005-12-31

> At least 50% of my FOSS advocacy time is spent pointing ot that FOSS !=
> $0. So hopefully lots of people know, who otherwise wouldn't.

That's very noble of you, but I don't think you'll reach the masses this way. Honestly, one of the primary faults of free software is that name.

> How many average people agree that it is *in fact* not about price,
> seeing no company make a fortune out of F/OSS?
>
> Except RedHat, apparently.

Enough to survive maybe, but hardly comparable to the money that flows into other software companies.

> > And no, MS is not the only company making a living out of
> > proprietary software.
>
> They have been and probably are doing their damnedest to make
> sure they will be. Only MS shills claim that FOSS supporters are on a
> jihad, or that it is solely against MS.

Well, then please tell me where Adobe, Blizzard, and the likes pull their money from. And I don't understand what the "jihad claim" has to do with it.

> If Joe User can't see it is wrong for a single company to lock out all
> the others, then that's somethign else we'll have to explain, I
> suppose.

Different companies are in competition, so the desire to "lock others out", as you call it, is only natural. Companies in other areas have to struggle for their survival too. As I said, actually building a better product would be a good start to defend against MS - Apple did, and they keep up against MS.

> > Very well. Gladly:
>
> Morin: Any arguments that you can make money with F/OSS are moot

There seems to be a misunderstanding about the different meanings of "moot". I meant "irrelevant".

> The restrictions which prevent playing in car stereos are exactly the
> type of thing DRM was created to impose.

You'd be surprised how many people see DRM as valid. They only think it's unfair that legaly puchased CDs don't work.

> It's a tired argument, but I think it's valid: Joe User doesn't value
> democracy [...]

Exactly. So if Joe doesn't even value democracy, which has a much more severe impact on the real life - why should he value F/OSS? You can draw the conclusion towards the number of people who's be interested.

> If
> you don't have the right to say "Bush sucks" or "Bush rules", or use
> the word processor YOU want, or listen to obscure Finnish folk
> groups at volumes levels that aren't quite anti-social, or bring out a
> new software product without fear of not being able to compete with
> the Juggernaut, then it's neither a democracy nor a free market.

Vista doesn't prevent you from saying "Bush sucks", that's exactly the difference between democracy and F/OSS. That the CD doesn't work, is a failure of the technology and not of DRM in general, and will be percieved as such. And that you have to compete against the juggernaut (or that the juggernaut exists at all) is more or less the essence of the free market, not its failure.

Reply Score: 4

RE[5]: restrictive?
by archiesteel on Sun 17th Dec 2006 21:54 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: restrictive?"
archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

And that you have to compete against the juggernaut (or that the juggernaut exists at all) is more or less the essence of the free market, not its failure.

I tend to disagree...it is both its essence and its failure, as monopolies are detrimental to the spirit of a free market (i.e. a "level playing field") and yet it seems they are its inevitable outcome.

This is proof, IMHO, that free markets are not self-sustainable, and that some amount of regulation is essential...but that's getting dangerously off-topic. :-)

Reply Score: 4

RE[6]: restrictive?
by twenex on Sun 17th Dec 2006 22:17 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: restrictive?"
twenex Member since:
2006-04-21

Precisely correct, imo.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: restrictive?
by twenex on Sun 17th Dec 2006 22:32 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: restrictive?"
twenex Member since:
2006-04-21

> At least 50% of my FOSS advocacy time is spent pointing ot that FOSS !=
> $0. So hopefully lots of people know, who otherwise wouldn't.

That's very noble of you, but I don't think you'll reach the masses this way. Honestly, one of the primary faults of free software is that name.


WHich even RMS recognises - the main problem is that no-one has thought of a better one. If you have, I'm sure we'll all be glad to hear it.

> How many average people agree that it is *in fact* not about price,
> seeing no company make a fortune out of F/OSS?
>
> Except RedHat, apparently.

Enough to survive maybe, but hardly comparable to the money that flows into other software companies.


How many "big players" do you think there are? More to the point, how many smaller ones do you think there are making proprietary software?

Well, then please tell me where Adobe, Blizzard, and the likes pull their money from. And I don't understand what the "jihad claim" has to do with it.

Don't know who Blizzard are, though they sound like a games company.

As for Adobe, it's pretty clear that whenever MS release a product in a new software category (as they are now doing with a competitor to PDF), the products of competitors pretty quickly get wiped off the face of the Earth, more often than not taking their producers with them.

Given the failures of MS, some of which (DOS 4, for example), are even acknowledged by its fans, it's pretty obvious that this isn't solely due to the mythical ability of the company to come up with a GOOD product EVERY time.

Different companies are in competition, so the desire to "lock others out", as you call it, is only natural.
If this were true then you'd not have ONE standard for home videotape, ONE for digital video disc, ONE for cars, etc.

It's a myth perpetrated by the proprietary computer hardware and software industry, with help from Sony, that proprietary technologies benefit anyone.

Any arguments that you can make money with F/OSS are moot

There seems to be a misunderstanding about the different meanings of "moot". I meant "irrelevant".


Since your original point was that it's difficult to impossible to make money from FOSS, proving otherwise is only "irrelevant" if you want your argument to stand. Which it doesn't.

Exactly. So if Joe doesn't even value democracy, which has a much more severe impact on the real life - why should he value F/OSS? You can draw the conclusion towards the number of people who's be interested.

The point which you seem to have missed is that he enjoys the benefits sometimes even without knowing it. In exactly the same way [risking confusing the point by introducing another anaology] as you can enjoy the benefits of non-stick pans without knowing what the Earth's escape velocity is - this being relevant since non-stick pans were developed as a byproduct of the space program.

Vista doesn't prevent you from saying "Bush sucks", that's exactly the difference between democracy and F/OSS. That the CD doesn't work, is a failure of the technology and not of DRM in general, and will be percieved as such. And that you have to compete against the juggernaut (or that the juggernaut exists at all) is more or less the essence of the free market, not its failure.

Archiesteel's already dealt with the latter half of that, but to go back to the first, you seem to be confusing analogy with argument. The argument was that DRM *imposes* what you call the "failure of the technology".

Reply Score: 4

Bad Message
by blitze on Sat 16th Dec 2006 00:53 UTC
blitze
Member since:
2006-09-15

The message is wrong. Better to show people the positives of Open Systems than bitch about what's wrong with DRM enabled closed systems.
Sorta like the cup is half full analogy, more palitable when seen in a positive frame of mind which will help the message achieve a broader appeal.

Now for all those Taliban comments, please, leave something obviously not know about aside from CNN snippits. Not that I like the Taliban but I can say for certain that the Afghani people were better off under them than the feudal war/drug lords they disposed (of whom are now supported by NATO). Just a typical occurance when the COW's decide to impose on another country's systems they f-it up and the local inhabitants end up suffering more as a result.

Please don't equate this with software distribution models and the like because it's nothing alike.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Bad Message
by b3timmons on Sat 16th Dec 2006 01:15 UTC in reply to "Bad Message"
b3timmons Member since:
2006-08-26

"The message is wrong. Better to show people the positives of Open Systems than bitch about what's wrong with DRM enabled closed systems.
Sorta like the cup is half full analogy, more palitable when seen in a positive frame of mind which will help the message achieve a broader appeal.
"

Generally, I agree with you, and generally the FSF has not in the past focused much on particular nonfree software. However, DRM changes the game drastically, and that is why the FSF is opposing it. TC/DRM can be used by powerful corporate or governmental interests to "lock down" people. Even if you think that is good (shudder), do you think criminals would stand for it? Even if you think that will never happen, do you think there are not oppressive interests in the world today who would love to subjugate people with systems such as this? Consider how the oppressive legislation around DRM (such as DMCA) erodes civil liberties.

To me, DRM and entertainment is rather silly; the scary part is when they get it to work and start locking down everything. BTW, IDC has projected all PCs to be locked down with DRM w/in five years.

Thus, in this case, the message against DRM-laden Vista is warranted. Criticism on these points is very welcome.

Reply Score: 2

Enough
by Kokopelli on Sat 16th Dec 2006 01:12 UTC
Kokopelli
Member since:
2005-07-06

Speaking as a long term Linux user I actually believe there are times where NotParker's comments are less annoying than the Linux advocates on this forum but enough.

Whether you agree or disagree with his opinions is immaterial at this point. Whether he is reasonable in his posts or the incarnation of ultimate evil does not matter either. It has gotten to the point where the topic of an article on which NotParker posts is not discussed. Something has to be done; it makes a mockery of the discussions and sours the whole site.

I would rather see NotParker stay but such is the hate (much in my opinion overly inflated) of users on this board for him that reasonable discussion does not happen. I watched the attempt at peace by archiesteel. Perhaps self serving, but at least an attempt. I also see it did not even make the slightest dent in the juggernaught of OSNews reader opinion.

I have been coming here for quite a long time, as Kokopelli in the Beos days, then Mephisto for a while. Never have I seen the threads hijacked so thoroughly and consistently. I thought perhaps the rating system would help, it has not. It just polarized the community even more against NotParker and his ilk. Enough folks, I would like to see discussion on the topics, not accusations and threats of violence on posters.

Honestly I find the badvista site in poor taste and somewhat dogmatic in approach. Give us facts and analysis not rhetoric about Trojan Horse features. But no one seems to care about the site or the article all too much, we seem to have an undue fascination with this one poor dissenting opinion with a sharp tongue.

So enough. Points of fairness and validity just do not matter anymore. Something has to be done to bring a sense of sanity back to these discussions.

Reply Score: 5

RE: Enough
by Hiev on Sat 16th Dec 2006 01:19 UTC in reply to "Enough"
Hiev Member since:
2005-09-27

It won't work, nobody is i partial here a comment like:

"GPL advocates are cultist" gets a -5, and a comment like:

"Windows users are stupid and they are giving away their freedom" gets a +5.

Sad but just a few are really objetive here.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Enough
by Kokopelli on Sat 16th Dec 2006 01:23 UTC in reply to "RE: Enough"
Kokopelli Member since:
2005-07-06

Honestly I do not expect objectivity here. But I at least hope for discussion on the topic. The programming topics, while only lightly posted to, are generally ok. People disagree (especially when Java is the topic) but at least they do not disrail. Same for other niche topics that NotParker is not interested in.

Edited 2006-12-16 01:24

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Enough
by deanlinkous on Sat 16th Dec 2006 01:25 UTC in reply to "RE: Enough"
deanlinkous Member since:
2006-06-19

"Windows users are stupid and they are giving away their freedom" gets a +5.

Geez it is just the truth, sounds about right to me! ;)

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Enough
by Hiev on Sat 16th Dec 2006 01:26 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Enough"
Hiev Member since:
2005-09-27

Thank you, you just proved my point =).

Reply Score: 1

Greenpeace
by tristan on Sat 16th Dec 2006 01:19 UTC
tristan
Member since:
2006-02-01

Meanwhile, back on topic...

When it comes down to it, the Free Software Foundation is a pressure group. If you want an analogy, think of it along the same lines as Greenpeace.

To the FSF hardliners, all closed-source (or rather, non-Free) software is evil. To a Greenpeace hardliner, anything that does harm to the planet is evil. Now, the United States is the world's biggest polluter. They also have (until January at least) an administration that completely refuses to acknowledge that the phenomenon of global warming exists, let alone one that is willing to pass laws to restrict it. It's understandable, therefore, that the US is Greenpeace's number one target.

You can work out this bit of the analogy for yourselves: Microsoft is the world's biggest "polluter" of closed-source software, and so is the FSF's biggest target.

Like all charities, Greenpeace gets its money from wherever it can. Would it be hypocritical of them to accept a donation from a government that still had coal-fired power stations (in addition, let's say, to large-scale windfarms)? In my opinion, no. It is, after all, still money in the bank; and it wouldn't stop Greenpeace from saying that the donating country should still get replace its remaining coal-fired power stations.

Of course, this analogy is far from perfect. Unlike Greenpeace, the FSF have an adequate replacement for the things they don't like. Also, Greenpeace aren't willing to answer tricky questions like, "what does the Rainbow Warrior run on then, pixie juice?". At least the FSF are willing to eat their own dogfood, as the saying goes.

Furthermore, people arguing that the FSF want to restrict choice are just missing the point. They want you to have a choice, but they want all the options to be free-as-in-speech. Of course they like the GPL best, and so they promote (what they call) GNU/Linux. But really, it's the principle that matters to the hard-liners. You can bet that if Microsoft went mad and announced tomorrow that Windows Vista would be available under a licence which met with the FSF's "four freedoms", they'd be partying at MIT like it was 1999.

Reply Score: 5

RE: Greenpeace
by raynevandunem on Sat 16th Dec 2006 05:40 UTC in reply to "Greenpeace"
raynevandunem Member since:
2006-11-24

I guess that's also why the mention of Greenpeace to any web forum will instantly receive responses of "communist", "hippie", "terrorist", and the like, as a generally low opinion is often held of Greenpeace (read the Digg responses to the "Greenpeace paper on Apple").

Same has often went for the FSF, although the opinion will be very divided and divisive because of the GNU project's importance to computing history.

Reply Score: 1

you know...
by 758mt on Sat 16th Dec 2006 01:39 UTC
758mt
Member since:
2006-11-04

I think FSF spends way to much time pointing fingers and calling names. We need to spend our time advancing and spreading the advantages of FOSS, am I right? Spending all this time and energy discriminating Microsoft is a waste, especially when it could be used to advancing the software to fight Microsoft instead of just whining about it!

Besides, if you want the users to use FOSS, then you have to market the BENEFITS of it, not market to disadvantages of everyone else!!

Reply Score: 1

RE (who knows what number: Fenatics
by Bobmeister on Sat 16th Dec 2006 02:31 UTC
Bobmeister
Member since:
2005-07-06

I LOVE FOSS and use it pretty much exclusively. The FSF is having fun and I'm having fun with them. Why not have fun with the richest company in the World? They don't need anything from us. I'm not a fanatic..I just want to have fun...and am...and FOSS is part of the fun.

NotParker can think what he wants....doesn't matter to me. He can have fun with his Vista thingy...if he wants...I won't...not interested in that crap.

HAHAHAHAHAHA

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: A stupid move
by npang on Sat 16th Dec 2006 02:34 UTC
npang
Member since:
2006-11-26

> People are being convinced that writing software without financial compensation is ethical.

I'm not completely sure what you mean by this sentence. Does it mean that: the FSF is convincing people that it is unethical to write software for users and expect compensation for their work?

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: A stupid move
by b3timmons on Sat 16th Dec 2006 03:03 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: A stupid move"
b3timmons Member since:
2006-08-26

"> People are being convinced that writing software without financial compensation is ethical.

I'm not completely sure what you mean by this sentence. Does it mean that: the FSF is convincing people that it is unethical to write software for users and expect compensation for their work?
"

This is not the right way to look at it. The ethics are embodied in the four software freedoms:

* The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
* The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1).
* The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).
* The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3).

Issues such as compensation are evaluated with respect to how they interact with these freedoms and with ethics in general. Some helpful examples are found in the following short, easy document:
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/pragmatic.html

Think about it carefully, and it will eventually make sense.

Reply Score: 4

RE[4]: A stupid move
by JeffS on Sat 16th Dec 2006 03:25 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: A stupid move"
JeffS Member since:
2005-07-12

"* The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
* The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1).
* The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).
* The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3).

Think about it carefully, and it will eventually make sense."


Excellent post.

Do think about it. Those four freedoms are not "cultist", from the "taliban", advocated by "fanatics", etc. Those four freedoms are both very ethical, and are quite simply common sense stuff.

Think about it, in terms of basically any other product type (not software). Don't we basically take those four freedoms, or freedoms like them, for granted when purchase pretty much any other product - such as books, cars, tools, furniture, etc?

If I buy a car, for instance, both the seller of the car, and the law, basically grants me those freedoms.
- I can run my car for any purpose (at least as it applies to other laws, like not driving drunk).
- I can study that car, and I can modify it, or hire someone to modify it for me. I can use what I've learned from studying that car to build my own car (if I had the skills, time, money and materials).
- I can give loan that car to a neighbor
- I can improve the car, and tell the whole world how I improved it.

All those who think the FSF, and those that support their efforts, are fanatics, or cultists, or whatever, please apply that exercise. Apply the four freedoms as defined by the FSF to just about any product type, and you'll realize what the FSF is advocating is not unusual, or extreme, or communist, in any way, shape or form.

But I'm sure people will make the argument that with software you can make copies, and take revenue away from the original maker, and that the same can apply to other types of "intellectual property" (books, music, movies, etc). But the answer to that is simply copyright. Yup, copyright is more than adequate to protect intellectual property. In fact the FSF is in favor of copyright. What protects the original author of GPL'd software is copyright.

But again, what the FSF is advocating is not extreme, or unusual. It's common sense, and ethical.

Edited 2006-12-16 03:26

Reply Score: 4

RE[5]: A stupid move
by deanlinkous on Sat 16th Dec 2006 04:11 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: A stupid move"
deanlinkous Member since:
2006-06-19

nicely stated!

I have often wondered why people accept the restrictions placed on them by non-free software when those same people would raise bloody hell and murder if similar restrictions were placed on other property...

Reply Score: 2

Wow!
by kaiwai on Sat 16th Dec 2006 02:58 UTC
kaiwai
Member since:
2005-07-06

Thats all I can say, 175 posts of utter cluelessness; Microsofties bashing opensource, opensource advocates annoucing a fatwa of a jihad against Microsoft and their infidel allies.

Has anyone actually sat back and thought that firstly consumers make the choice not only to purchase a Windows machine, but also choose to keep running Windows - it isn't as though somehow Windows is so integrated and bolted onto the machine that they can't simply format their hard disk and install Linux/OpenSolaris/some other operating system flavour.

Regarding FSF; if the FSF wish to get people to feel the <austin powers voice>'free love, free code and freedom baby year!' then maybe the FSF should knuckle down and start producing the products that end users want.

A Nero replacement that isn't so broken that permissions, SELinux issues, lack of plugins, and crash proneness doesn't persuade people to give up after 15 minutes or use; how about *looking* at the likes of Photoshop, InDesign, Acrobat, Illustrator, Flash and the likes, and create free, opensource duplicates of it? why don't they look at Microsoft Office, and actually fix OpenOffice.org so that it is no longer a lumbering bearge of an application that seems to take for eternity to load on even the most powerful of machines.

People want to know where the 'alternatives' to the Windows proprietary applications are lacking - *EVERYTHING* from the look and feel of the application, to the documentation and responsiveness, the lack of features or features that are flexible and accessible to even the most newest of end users - its all about the presentation; like I've said, I'ved *tried* to give input, but I was abused by the GIMP developers, proving to me, they don't want help or advice, they prefer to sit around abusing end users.

People choose 'restrictive proprietary applications' because the FSF sit around posturing and potificating like academics playing the 'whats wrong with the world' parlour game rather than providing the public with a choice by putting out competiting products that are feature for feature, ease-of-use for ease-of-use equal or better to that of their proprietary rivals.

How about the FSF actually listen to USERS like *ME* instead of stting around in IRC chat rooms demeaning end users and barating them for not knowing the 'voodoo' behind programming, and that the end user should shut their trap and just be satisfied with that is out there - the kinda of treatment I received at the hands of GIMP developers when I offered some input.

Edited 2006-12-16 03:10

Reply Score: 4

RE: Wow!
by twenex on Sat 16th Dec 2006 11:34 UTC in reply to "Wow!"
twenex Member since:
2006-04-21

Has anyone actually sat back and thought that firstly consumers make the choice not only to purchase a Windows machine, but also choose to keep running Windows - it isn't as though somehow Windows is so integrated and bolted onto the machine that they can't simply format their hard disk and install Linux/OpenSolaris/some other operating system flavour.

How many consumers do you know who can install an operating system. Even Windows?

Regarding FSF; if the FSF wish to get people to feel the <austin powers voice>'free love, free code and freedom baby year!' then maybe the FSF should knuckle down and start producing the products that end users want.

What, like Emacs?


A Nero replacement that isn't so broken that permissions, SELinux issues, lack of plugins, and crash proneness doesn't persuade people to give up after 15 minutes or use; how about *looking* at the likes of Photoshop, InDesign, Acrobat, Illustrator, Flash and the likes, and create free, opensource duplicates of it? why don't they look at Microsoft Office, and actually fix OpenOffice.org so that it is no longer a lumbering bearge of an application that seems to take for eternity to load on even the most powerful of machines.


Well as for everything but k3b (which works perfectly for me, and better than the application on this Windows machine - NTI Backup (fyi) - and OO.org, you have a point; as for OO.org, have you tried it lately?

People want to know where the 'alternatives' to the Windows proprietary applications are lacking - *EVERYTHING* from the look and feel of the application,
Again, what's wrong with OO.org? On my machine it looks just like a KDE app.
to the documentation and responsiveness,
[/i]
Documentation you may have a point. But then Microsoft documentation's no good either. Responsiveness? Windows makes all applications unresponsive. Seriously.

the lack of features or features that are flexible and accessible to even the most newest of end users - its all about the presentation;

Need I remind you that MS Office has "features that are not accessible to new end users"? Microsoft admitted it.

I'm not trolling, I'm just wondering where the "Microsoft applications are so much better than FOSS" argument is coming from.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Wow!
by kaiwai on Sat 16th Dec 2006 12:06 UTC in reply to "RE: Wow!"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

If you read the reply, it is dealing with proprietary vs. FSF software; Adobe, Corel, Microsoft, Quicken, MYOB, etc vs. FSF.

The FSF has failed to step up to the crease and deliver what one would consider a 'viable opensource alternative' - if ther eis a large number of people 'opting' for Windows Vista, either via continued usage after purchasing a computer or via a retail upgrade, the blame clearly can be laid at the feet of the FSF at their half assed attempt to provide a viable alteranative.

Regaring responsiveness; I'm running Windows, and ripping off a cd without any problem; on a more powerful laptop, runniung Fedora Core 6, and the whole machine is bought to a crawl - hardly twhat I would call 'superior'.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Wow!
by twenex on Sat 16th Dec 2006 12:11 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Wow!"
twenex Member since:
2006-04-21

The FSF has failed to step up to the crease and deliver what one would consider a 'viable opensource alternative' - if ther eis a large number of people 'opting' for Windows Vista, either via continued usage after purchasing a computer or via a retail upgrade, the blame clearly can be laid at the feet of the FSF at their half assed attempt to provide a viable alteranative.

The FSF aren't the only ones producing FOSS software.

OO.org is sufficient for a lot of people who wouldn't touch Linux. So is Firefox.

Your point?

if ther eis a large number of people 'opting' for Windows Vista,

they will only exist in the minds of people who think that "putting up with what seems like your only choice" is the definition of "opting"

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Wow!
by kaiwai on Sat 16th Dec 2006 23:43 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Wow!"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

they will only exist in the minds of people who think that "putting up with what seems like your only choice" is the definition of "opting"

Oh, come on, lets not try to think end users are morons; you really think that end users go, "geeze, I really hate this big bulky American style car which chews through petrol like there is no tomorrow....but I'll put up with it because its the only choice!?" - of course not, statistics are showing in the US, people are opting to go for the more efficient Japanese vehicles being assembled by Toyota - consumer choice in action.

And sure, there will always be a hardcore base of idiots who will refuse to move no matter what the alternative is; just as there are hardcore and deluded people who stick with 'american made cars' there will be deluded individuals who will stick with Windows/Mac/What have you, no matter what facts are displayed, no matter how goo the alternatives are.

The FSF aren't the only ones producing FOSS software.

He who speaks the loudest, by default, takes on the responsibility of providing alternatives to proprietary software - it would be the equivilant of Microsoft bashing PDF but providing no alternative.

If you are going to bash something - have an alternative developing in the background so that when you do go public, it doesn't simply appear to be bashing something for the sake of bashing something - its actually something proactive, "we think that is inferior for these reasons, there fore, we've provided this as a superior alternative" or "we've outlined a roadmap that will provide a superior alternative".

The FSF has neither provided a comprehensiive road map for an alternative/parallel opensource duplicate of what we see out there or actually working to improve their currrent line up of products - to me, it seems to be more bashing and grand standing than actually any genuine altruistic message that they wish to send out to end users.

OO.org is sufficient for a lot of people who wouldn't touch Linux. So is Firefox.

OO.org is bloated and poorly integrated in with either KDE or GNOME; its look and feel is completely out of place; whether being on Windows or *NIX, it has the feel of running a Wine application, via an X server on a Intel Mac - ugly, inconsistant and slow.

Firefox has a memory leak so large that you can fly a 747 through, with developers denying the existance of this particular leak - and the *WORSE* possible part of this, it isn't as though I'm the only one whining, this has been a persistant whine by end users for ages! this is yet another example of opensource developers, ivory towers and their 'shut the hell up and be satisfied with what we give you' mentality.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Wow!
by archiesteel on Sat 16th Dec 2006 23:50 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Wow!"
archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

OO.org is bloated and poorly integrated in with either KDE or GNOME; its look and feel is completely out of place;

You should try version 2 on Ubuntu. It's quite well-integrated, and doesn't feel out of place. When you use it with oooqs (which basically uses the same preloading trick MS uses for Office on Windows), it starts in a snap and is a joy to use.

Now, if only they could add a decent Outline Mode view, I could ditch MS Office altogether...

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Wow!
by kaiwai on Sat 16th Dec 2006 23:59 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Wow!"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

You should try version 2 on Ubuntu. It's quite well-integrated, and doesn't feel out of place. When you use it with oooqs (which basically uses the same preloading trick MS uses for Office on Windows), it starts in a snap and is a joy to use.

Ubuntu would be a great distribution to use, if their wpa_supplicant and ipw3945 support wasn't so incredibly broken to the point of being useless.

Something the ubuntu community need to learn - test, test, test and oh, when someone actually files a bug report, fix the damn bug! something that seems to be a foreign concept in the opensource community.

We have the 'opensource community' take the morale highground, how about this community actually do what they claim they do, and fix the issues that end users like me face, rather than spending copious amounts of time bashing proprietary software.

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: Wow!
by archiesteel on Sun 17th Dec 2006 00:06 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Wow!"
archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

Ubuntu would be a great distribution to use, if their wpa_supplicant and ipw3945 support wasn't so incredibly broken to the point of being useless.

wpa_supplicant works great on my machine here, but I don't use ipw3945 so maybe that's the problem (I have a broadcom wireless chipset)...isn't the latter part of the kernel, however?

Something the ubuntu community need to learn - test, test, test and oh, when someone actually files a bug report, fix the damn bug! something that seems to be a foreign concept in the opensource community.

I think you are exaggerating a bit, here. I agree that some bugs take longer than others to fix, but overall progress on Linux has been phenomenal over the past years.

We have the 'opensource community' take the morale highground, how about this community actually do what they claim they do, and fix the issues that end users like me face, rather than spending copious amounts of time bashing proprietary software.

Here I have to disagree. Opensource advocates are not necessarily developers. In fact, many FOSS advocates, like me, are *users*...most developers don't waste their time posting on internet forum, and as such I respectfully believe that this particular criticism is unfair.

In other words, not every member of the community is a developer, and so you shouldn't build an argument based on that assumption.

Edited 2006-12-17 00:15

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: Wow!
by twenex on Sat 16th Dec 2006 23:56 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Wow!"
twenex Member since:
2006-04-21

Oh, come on, lets not try to think end users are morons; you really think that end users go, "geeze, I really hate this big bulky American style car which chews through petrol like there is no tomorrow....but I'll put up with it because its the only choice!?" - of course not, statistics are showing in the US, people are opting to go for the more efficient Japanese vehicles being assembled by Toyota - consumer choice in action.

Insinuating that users are morons was not my intention, though it seems to be Microsoft's (Gates says that DRM is "too complex" for consumers). What my intention was, was to point out that, to continue your car analogy, you don't have to take lessons to drive either GM or Toyota cars - it's both. OTOH moving from Windows almost certainly involves disentangling oneself from vendor lock-in.


The FSF has neither provided a comprehensiive road map for an alternative/parallel opensource duplicate of what we see out there or actually working to improve their currrent line up of products - to me, it seems to be more bashing and grand standing than actually any genuine altruistic message that they wish to send out to end users.


As I indicated, it's not the sole responsibility of the FSF to do so, and if they did, then there would be people complaining about the duplication of effort.

After all, we already have OO.org, KOffice, Abiword/Gnumeric, and SoftMaker.

The Linux distro makers, on the other hand, ARE deploying alternatives - if Xandros are not popular, and if Novell stuffed up this MS deal, that's hardly the FSF's fault.


OO.org is bloated and poorly integrated in with either KDE or GNOME; its look and feel is completely out of place; whether being on Windows or *NIX, it has the feel of running a Wine application, via an X server on a Intel Mac - ugly, inconsistant and slow.


There are plenty of apps on Windows that are "poorly integrated with the look and feel" of Windows. Media Player for one. And that's an MS app. The next version of office is going to look even further out of place in XP, and I hear Vista apps from MS are a confusion mess of menus or ribbons and browser-style back buttons and dialog-box-style Next buttons.

it has the feel of running a Wine application, via an X server on a Intel Mac - ugly, inconsistant and slow.

Hyperbole.

Firefox has a memory leak so large that you can fly a 747 through, with developers denying the existance of this particular leak - and the *WORSE* possible part of this, it isn't as though I'm the only one whining, this has been a persistant whine by end users for ages!

Since Firefox is still gaining on IE in some markets (notably continental Europe), this is either a non-issue for most or shows how badly IE is now regarded.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Wow!
by kaiwai on Sun 17th Dec 2006 00:23 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Wow!"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

Insinuating that users are morons was not my intention, though it seems to be Microsoft's (Gates says that DRM is "too complex" for consumers). What my intention was, was to point out that, to continue your car analogy, you don't have to take lessons to drive either GM or Toyota cars - it's both. OTOH moving from Windows almost certainly involves disentangling oneself from vendor lock-in.

DRM is too complex because there is no information out there for consumers to make informed choices; I am completely against DRM because it is a restriction; if the media companies wish to stop piracy, firstly they must accept there will always be a hardcore group who will pirate irrespective of the legal status and secondly they need to look at the underlying reasons for piracy rather than simply passing potential customers off as criminals.

Regarding the change in vehicle, there is still a change, some cases you'll need to find a 'toyota authorised maintainers', changing of insurance information, in the case of New Zealand, if you own a subaru, its going to cost you more in premiums.

The Linux distro makers, on the other hand, ARE deploying alternatives - if Xandros are not popular, and if Novell stuffed up this MS deal, that's hardly the FSF's fault.

It is the FSF fault because the FSF are the one promoting the idea of free software; if they want Free software to be adopted, then they need to get involved in projects to ensure that desirable outcomes are produced which make a good image for the Free Software movement overall.

There are plenty of apps on Windows that are "poorly integrated with the look and feel" of Windows. Media Player for one. And that's an MS app. The next version of office is going to look even further out of place in XP, and I hear Vista apps from MS are a confusion mess of menus or ribbons and browser-style back buttons and dialog-box-style Next buttons.

I'm running Windows Media Player (version 11) right now, and its a great piece of software; the WMA codec is far superior to mp3 vb 320 - I've encoded the same song in mp3 vb, fixed and compared it to wma, and from what I hear, wma, especially on the music I listen to, is far superior in quality in regards to gritty guitar rifts in music such as Rammstein, and electronic sounds in music by Sun Ra.

Since Firefox is still gaining on IE in some markets (notably continental Europe), this is either a non-issue for most or shows how badly IE is now regarded.

Firefox has gained marketshare via a motivated anti-Microsoft and hyped up campaign; compared to Internet Explorer, it is better, but at the same time, Firefox shouldn't be comparing itself to anything, it should simply be superior, because its superior, not superior compared to some other product.

They need to shrink the memory consumption, fix the instability issues, fix the operating system integration issues so that one is no longer faced with ugly forms widgets when running it on MacOS X.

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: Wow!
by twenex on Sun 17th Dec 2006 00:34 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Wow!"
twenex Member since:
2006-04-21

Firefox has gained marketshare via a motivated anti-Microsoft and hyped up campaign;

Yes, that's right, anytime MS do any marketing, which frequently involves dissing or undermining competitors, that's OK; when OSS users do any marketing it's "anti-MS".

it should simply be superior, because its superior, not superior compared to some other product.

That's a non-sequitur to end all non-sequiturs. By definition if something is superior, it is superior to something else. Or everything else.

Reply Score: 5

RE[3]: Wow!
by twenex on Sat 16th Dec 2006 12:15 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Wow!"
twenex Member since:
2006-04-21

Regaring responsiveness; I'm running Windows, and ripping off a cd without any problem; on a more powerful laptop, runniung Fedora Core 6, and the whole machine is bought to a crawl - hardly twhat I would call 'superior'.

With Linux you have a choice, and personally my Linux choice has always been "not Fedora", among other things. FYI, the Linux I run on my 3 or four year old cheap-as-chips desktop is more responsive than XP on a year-old laptop - and said desktop is running KDE 3.5, not XFce or ICEwm or Blackbox or something like that.

Arguing that Linux is crap because there is something wrong with Fedora is as silly as arguing that cars are crap because Ladas are crap, and that therefore people should purchase 747s instead. Or more to the point, arguing that XP is crap because Windows 1 was crap.

Edited 2006-12-16 12:16

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Wow!
by kaiwai on Sat 16th Dec 2006 23:51 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Wow!"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

With Linux you have a choice, and personally my Linux choice has always been "not Fedora", among other things. FYI, the Linux I run on my 3 or four year old cheap-as-chips desktop is more responsive than XP on a year-old laptop - and said desktop is running KDE 3.5, not XFce or ICEwm or Blackbox or something like that.

Thats a beautifully generic reply, thank you for pointing out or informing me of nothing.

I have tried Novell Linux Enterprise Desktop - its majorly out of date, but it works, SuSE Linux is slow - the last time I tried it was 10.1; from the reviews it hasn't improved much from the last time, which leaves Fedora.

Sorry, I'm not going to try, "zxy" because then it leaves me out in the cold in regards to having access to a decent range of packages; sure, I could compile what I need from scratch, but why should I need to do such.

As for other alternatives, I would run FreeBSD, which is actually my first choice, but too bad the maintainers of the wireless drivers are too lazy to port the latest wpi driver to FreeBSD from OpenBSD to support the 3945abg chipset.

Like I said previously, this is typical of the 'programming elite' their brain elsewhere, but quite happy to abuse end users to buggery when they don't happen to agree with what is being said.

Reply Score: 0

RE[5]: Wow!
by twenex on Sun 17th Dec 2006 00:00 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Wow!"
twenex Member since:
2006-04-21

Sorry, I'm not going to try, "zxy" because then it leaves me out in the cold in regards to having access to a decent range of packages; sure, I could compile what I need from scratch, but why should I need to do such.

Debian has the largest collection of packages, I believe.

As for FreeBSD, why don't you pester the developers to do it?

Probably because you think FOSS developers are as unresponsive to user requests as proprietary developers. That isn't the case in my experience.

BTW, the OS I use on my desktop is Gentoo. With just about all the USE flags (=features) I can find compiled in. (Which slows things down)


Like I said previously, this is typical of the 'programming elite' their brain elsewhere, but quite happy to abuse end users to buggery when they don't happen to agree with what is being said.


Sorry, you must be thinking of someone else. I don't "abuse end users," I don't do it "to buggery," and calling me a programmer would be a hilarious overestimation of my coding skills.

Reply Score: 3

RE[6]: Wow!
by kaiwai on Sun 17th Dec 2006 00:30 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Wow!"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

As for FreeBSD, why don't you pester the developers to do it?

Already have, I wish I could find the email, but I sent it off, and he told me that there is no plan to support the chipset either now or in the future - nice to see that FreeBSD love and support in action <rolls eyes>

Probably because you think FOSS developers are as unresponsive to user requests as proprietary developers. That isn't the case in my experience.

Its not just about feature requests; I can accept there will be waiting for features, but for bug fixes, and issues! please, the issue should get fixed straight away, otherwise I might as well simply wait on the telephone cue with Microsoft, pay $50 and file a bug report, which atleast I'll know will get fixed sometime rather than not at all, in the case of opensource!

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: Wow!
by twenex on Sun 17th Dec 2006 00:45 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Wow!"
twenex Member since:
2006-04-21

Already have, I wish I could find the email, but I sent it off, and he told me that there is no plan to support the chipset either now or in the future - nice to see that FreeBSD love and support in action


And what was hte reason for that? Was it because the manufacturer won't release the specs? In which I am sure the FBSD developers told you it would be best if you bugged the manufacturer instead.

Its not just about feature requests; I can accept there will be waiting for features, but for bug fixes, and issues! please, the issue should get fixed straight away, otherwise I might as well simply wait on the telephone cue with Microsoft, pay $50 and file a bug report, which atleast I'll know will get fixed sometime rather than not at all, in the case of opensource!

I suspect you will find that more and better and faster bug fixing is done in the FOSS community than anywhere else, and certainly not at $50 per phone call.

Someone somewhere mentioned that Linux users continually promote Linux as the best software evah, and diss MS.

The fact is, that even if MS didn't do the reverse, I have tried everything else and I think, for reasons which aren't always to do with Linux' quality, that given the combination of openness, speed, flexibility, stability and features it offers, it certainly is. Windows doesn't offer that combination, and most other OSes are much farther behind. The BSDs lie somewhere in between, but it would be nice if someone would come up with a new paradigm.

SymphonyOS (mentioned here on OSnews recently) looks nice but failed to run on my machine, for example. added to the fact that it has, of course, linux underpinnings beneath that desktop.

Hell, most "alternative OSes" just use the single-root-hierarchical-directory-structure-and-lowercase-filename strategy of UNIX. How's about a proper AS/400-style database filesystem, for example? Or an OS with automatically memory-mapped files and properly-implemented segments, a la Multics? Or bringing back "media autosensing" a la AmigaOS, so that a volume icon appears when you insert a disk, the disk is automatically mounted, and when you eject it it is automatically unmounted and the icon disappears. Put all of those under a SymphonyOS- or NextStep-style desktop and you'd have a winner, IMO.

Reply Score: 3

The FSF is using Microsoft tactics
by Lambda on Sat 16th Dec 2006 03:38 UTC
Lambda
Member since:
2006-07-28

This is exactly what Linus was talking about in his response to banning non-GPL drivers. "You are the same as the people you criticize by using the same tactics as them".

This is why the FSF continues to isolate itself from the open source world, and why it is sliding into irrelevance.

Reply Score: 2

Bogus theories on FSF tactics
by b3timmons on Sat 16th Dec 2006 05:00 UTC in reply to "The FSF is using Microsoft tactics"
b3timmons Member since:
2006-08-26

"This is exactly what Linus was talking about in his response to banning non-GPL drivers. "You are the same as the people you criticize by using the same tactics as them".

This is why the FSF continues to isolate itself from the open source world, and why it is sliding into irrelevance.
"

What kind of nonsense are you repeating? Linus presumably identified some of his fellow developers with people they criticized. So if you are taking Linus's side and you assume that the criticized people are the FSF, then how can the FSF be isolating itself from those "open source" developers, when all together they presumably held a shared point of view on non-GPL drivers (at least before backing down from Linus's tactics)?

Why not just think for yourself and attack the FSF on their ideas, if you hate the FSF so much?

Edited 2006-12-16 05:04

Reply Score: 3

RE: Bogus theories on FSF tactics
by Lambda on Sat 16th Dec 2006 05:34 UTC in reply to "Bogus theories on FSF tactics"
Lambda Member since:
2006-07-28

So if you are taking Linus's side and you assume that the criticized people are the FSF

No, the FSF was not who he was referring to. It was the DRM/RIA folks. Read his comments for further info.

then how can the FSF be isolating itself from those "open source" developers, when all together they presumably held a shared point of view on non-GPL drivers (at least before backing down from Linus's tactics)?

Not even close. They were very much the minority, and at least one came to see the error in his thinking.


Why not just think for yourself and attack the FSF on their ideas, if you hate the FSF so much?

I already did. FSF is as bad as Microsoft when it comes to throwing FUD around. That is where "same as the people you criticize" comes from.

Reply Score: 1

b3timmons Member since:
2006-08-26

OK Lambda, here is the link to Linus's response on non-GPL drivers. Tell me if this is not the email you are referring to.

http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/475824

Your quote(*) must be your own, since it is not Linus's.

OK, are you thinking of this chunk from Linus to certain kernel developers:

"The silly thing is, the people who tend to push most for this are the exact SAME people who say that the RIAA etc should not be able to tell people what to do with the music copyrights that they own, and that the DMCA is bad because it puts technical limits over the rights expressly granted by copyright law.

Doesn't anybody else see that as being hypocritical?

So it's ok when we do it, but bad when other people do it? Somehow I'm not surprised, but I still think it's sad how you guys are showing a marked two-facedness about this.
"

Note that Linus is not referring, as you say, to the *A people, but to critics of those people.

Moreover, you claim those developers who spoke up were the minority. Well, who were the majority that spoke up against them? I only see Linus, and the only thing relevant to this discussion is his charge of hypocrisy against those kernel devs.

Anyway, the bottom line is that you should not have to hide behind an authority figure such as Linus just for a lousy quote on hypocrisy. You somehow imagine that FSF throws FUD like Microsoft, that David throws FUD like Goliath. Well, the size disparity is ridiculous; Microsoft has a huge marketing operation ready for FUD; what could the FSF possibly muster with a tiny budget?

Consider another aspect of Microsoft FUD: dishonesty. Name one lie from FSF.

(*) = "You are the same as the people you criticize by using the same tactics as them".

Edited 2006-12-16 06:37

Reply Score: 2

Lambda Member since:
2006-07-28

Note that Linus is not referring, as you say, to the *A people, but to critics of those people

I don't know what you mean by "*A" people.

"The silly thing is, the people who tend to push most for this are the exact SAME people who say that the RIAA etc should not be able to tell people what to do with the music copyrights that they own

Note, the SAME there.


Moreover, you claim those developers who spoke up were the minority. Well, who were the majority that spoke up against them? I only see Linus, and the only thing relevant to this discussion is his charge of hypocrisy against those kernel devs.


You didn't read the entire thread then.

Anyway, the bottom line is that you should not have to hide behind an authority figure such as Linus just for a lousy quote on hypocrisy.

Are you afraid of people knowing about the divide between the free software and open source? You did say "authority figure".

You somehow imagine that FSF throws FUD like Microsoft, that David throws FUD like Goliath. Well, the size disparity is ridiculous and unworthy of comment.

So the FSF can throw around FUD because they aren't as big as Microsoft. A little girl can go around kicking people because she's not as big as a full grown man.


So consider another aspect of Microsoft FUD: dishonesty. Name one lie from FSF.

Just the fact that they have "BadVista" is FUD and idiocy. That whole first paragraph is a lie. The entire thing is FSF propaganda, with no basis in reality.

Reply Score: 2

b3timmons Member since:
2006-08-26

Dude, Linus is referring to critics of RIAA and DMCA. Read it again.

Yes, FS and OS have a divide, big deal. Note that Linus bemoans this as many of us do.

"So the FSF can throw around FUD because they aren't as big as Microsoft. A little girl can go around kicking people because she's not as big as a full grown man."

Where is she kicking people, and why should anyone expect any good of the man with his track record and current behavior with the likes of Ballmer and Gates? Metaphors will not rescue your lack of a point.

"Just the fact that they have "BadVista" is FUD and idiocy. That whole first paragraph is a lie. The entire thing is FSF propaganda, with no basis in reality."

BadVista, cancer sticks, etc. -- big deal. There are several sections or stories with first paragraphs, and I have found no lies. If it is as bad as you say it is, why not enlighten the world by just copy/pasting it and pointing out its egregious lies? I don't mind either way, since if I am wrong, I will just complain to the FSF. See how far complaining to Microsoft marketing will get you.

Reply Score: 2

Lambda Member since:
2006-07-28

Dude, Linus is referring to critics of RIAA and DMCA. Read it again.

No, you read it again. Hint, SAME.

Where is she kicking people, and why should anyone expect any good of the man with his track record and current behavior with the likes of Ballmer and Gates? Metaphors will not rescue your lack of a point.

The FSF and Stallman's bad track record and current behavior won't rescue your denials. Stallman's lies and propagnda to the weak-minded are worse than anything that Ballmer or Gates has ever done.

BadVista, cancer sticks, etc. -- big deal. There are several sections or stories with first paragraphs, and I have found no lies. If it is as bad as you say it is, why not enlighten the world by just copy/pasting it and pointing out its egregious lies? I don't mind either way, since if I am wrong, I will just complain to the FSF. See how far complaining to Microsoft marketing will get you.

The whole first paragraph is a lie. Should I just copy-n-paste the whole thing?

Reply Score: 1

b3timmons Member since:
2006-08-26

"No, you read it again. Hint, SAME."

Here's the quote

"The silly thing is, the people who tend to push most for this are the exact SAME people who say that the RIAA etc should not be able to tell people what to do with the music copyrights that they own

Read: the same people who say that the RIAA...

The same people are not the RIAA, but people who say something about the RIAA. Seriously, read the email again and you will see your mistakes.

"The FSF and Stallman's bad track record and current behavior won't rescue your denials. Stallman's lies and propagnda to the weak-minded are worse than anything that Ballmer or Gates has ever done. "

You keep talking about lies, but have not provided one yet. Name one lie from Stallman. Moreover, if you had any clue about the strong minds who agree with Stallman, you would feel regret over being temporarily possessed and spewing out that nonsense. In the end, however, the personalities go away, and you are left so far with no argument against the principles of free software.

"The whole first paragraph is a lie. Should I just copy-n-paste the whole thing? "

Please, I am starving for a lie from the FSF.

Edited 2006-12-16 08:11

Reply Score: 3

No more blah blah
by ebasconp on Sat 16th Dec 2006 04:37 UTC
ebasconp
Member since:
2006-05-09

The best way to fight against the devil is creating software able to compete against the devil software.

Thus, instead of so many "trollness" and flame wars, let's start to coding something great, something the people wants to use. The only way to win, is doing it in the battlefield!

Reply Score: 1

Moderators, step up!
by Valhalla on Sat 16th Dec 2006 04:46 UTC
Valhalla
Member since:
2006-01-24

if the moderators will simply ban all the baseless slandering such as 'microsoft is evil', 'fsf is a cult', 'windows users are morons', 'fanatic', 'religion', 'zelot' etc, then we will get rid of the extremists/trolls and could actually have a discussion here.

though I've been on OSNews but a short time, I've found that the level of discussion has really deteriorated from when I first joined.

any voices of reason and rationale gets drowned in a neverending stream of insults and name calling.

you don't like Microsoft or FSF, GPL or Propriety software? point out why and back it up with facts and/or rationale, else it's just verbal vomit.

what happens now is that one extremist points at one extremist on the other side and says, "look, this is how they all are!", and then the insults ensue.

it's time for the moderators to actually moderate.

Reply Score: 1

Children, please
by matt.britt on Sat 16th Dec 2006 04:55 UTC
matt.britt
Member since:
2005-11-01

The FSF is a cult!
> Anyone who defends a monopolistic company like Microsoft is a moron!
You're an open source Nazi! Comparing software with Nazism is historically relevant and not at all offensive or trite!
> Waahh, moderators, he called me a bad name, ban him!

Okay this is simple:

1. It's the Internet, some people can't resist arguing and acting like general jerks when given total anonymity, just walk away and you'll be a lot happier for it.

2. At least consider bringing your "getting along with others" skills from primary school with you when you come online. Being anonymous doesn't mean you have to act like a jerk.

3. Do I have to separate you kids? Don't make me pull this car over!

Reply Score: 2

RE: Children, please
by tomcat on Sat 16th Dec 2006 07:06 UTC in reply to "Children, please"
tomcat Member since:
2006-01-06

You forgot one...

4. Some people can't resist giving trite, moralizing advice.

Reply Score: 1

Badvista bad tactics
by unoengborg on Sat 16th Dec 2006 05:11 UTC
unoengborg
Member since:
2005-07-06

You don't gain anything by criticizing your opponent, it much better to tell the world what you are good at, and from my expeirence from Linux and other free software that is a lot.

Reply Score: 2

SJVN is a well-known ABMer...
by tomcat on Sat 16th Dec 2006 06:43 UTC
tomcat
Member since:
2006-01-06

... and he would undoubtedly prefer that people ignored Windows Vista so that Linux has a chance to catch up by the next release of Windows.

Reply Score: 1

tomcat
Member since:
2006-01-06

This is OSNews. It isn't Linux News. Or OS X News. Or BeOS News. The fact is that you don't want to read differing opinions. You want to be spoon-fed F/OSS groupthink that mirrors your narrow world view. I want to read what NotParker has to say. I know that it will be controversial. That's why I enjoy coming to this site.

But the people talking about banning others are nothing short of Brownshirts. Does eliminating diversity of opinion make you feel more secure in your little world? Is your self-esteem so dependent on a fragile house of cards ideology that you can't tolerate people who disagree with you? Sheez. Go burn some books. But do it somewhere else. Some of us enjoy reading.

Edited 2006-12-16 06:58

Reply Score: 0

twenex Member since:
2006-04-21

This is OSNews. It isn't Linux News. Or OS X News. Or BeOS News.

Hate to break it to ya, but it ain't WindowsNews either.

The fact is that you don't want to read differing opinions.

No, we want to read opinions from Windows users on why Windows is better, not on why FOSS users are cultists. To put it another way, we want arguments, not insults.

You want to be spoon-fed F/OSS groupthink that mirrors your narrow world view.

Hmm, as opposed to a world-view that says only software from one company is worth anything? Please.

I want to read what NotParker has to say. I know that it will be controversial. That's why I enjoy coming to this site.

Which only proves that you're as big of an "asshat" (and thanks to the person who invented that) as he is. Plenty Linux users make arguments for Linux and against Microsoft; plenty Microsoft users are capable of making arguments against Linux and for Microsoft.

Unfortunately, not many of those MS users grace this site. What we have instead are shit-stirring adolescent arsetrolls like NotParker and his troop of bumboys, of which you are pathetic enough to be proud to be a member.

Reply Score: 5

Good move
by djangoxl on Sat 16th Dec 2006 10:20 UTC
djangoxl
Member since:
2006-03-10

I agree with th FSF....because we need to show the world and average joe's that there ARE viable alternatives.

I haven't looked at Vista because I'm off the Windows bandwagon and there's nothing I need which can't be solved by Open Source software. But to be honest, I'm not a gamer or some graphics designer or some special user.

However, this stance is NOT the only answer. This fight should be on multiple levels:

1) This initiative by FSF
2) Companies should stand behind Open Source software more
3) Open Source users should show their successes more
4) Continues development in the diverse open source projects like Apache, Linux, *BSD's, PostgreSQL, Scribus, Gimp, Firefox etc etc
5) FSF should express their concerns to governments also
6) etc

This will be a multi-level fight between big money and idealism and they always told me that GOOD will ALWAYS win from the EVIL, so we as open source enthousiasts don't have to fear the EVIL MS

Reply Score: 2

so...
by JernejL on Sat 16th Dec 2006 11:32 UTC
JernejL
Member since:
2006-03-15

So, they have a campaign against vista, so what can they offer that can rival vista on the desktop?

Reply Score: 1

RE: so...
by dylansmrjones on Sat 16th Dec 2006 13:37 UTC in reply to "so..."
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

KDE and Gnome and many packages which can do what Vista can.

With Vista Microsoft has managed to pretty much be on par with Gnome/KDE and Mac OS X.

The difference is that Gnome/KDE and Mac OS X can run with much fewer system resources than Vista - and still look good.

Reply Score: 4

Rights and Choice, My Take on it.
by HagerR15 on Sat 16th Dec 2006 14:14 UTC
HagerR15
Member since:
2005-07-25

First of all, I look at an operating system as part of the machine, not an add-on. The computer without it is just a really big paperweight. Therefore, I would like the right to know what it is doing and how it is doing it. ALL operating systems should be open for public viewing. However, I also believe that code is ~a work of literature and should be protected from plagierism.

Programs, on the other hand,are tools to perform work or play, and can be proprietary if they want. As long as they aren't part of the operating system. I also reserve the right to add or remove them if I wish. Here is where Microsoft fails me. I don't like IE (6 or 7) and would like to remove it. I can't. I like WMP10, but WMP11 is a convoluted mess so I don't want it. In Vista, I can't remove it.

Mac OSX has a similar problem with it's operating system being closed, but I don't have to keep iTunes or Safari if I don't wish. I wish I could put OSX on a PC, but Apple doesn't have to allow it if they don't want, and I can understand their point of view on that. OSX is better and faster than WindowsXP in my experience, and the programs, although fewer to choose from, are simply much better. Love NeoOffice!

FOSS has a valid position, but so does Microsoft. If FOSS doesn't take the extreme left to counterbalance Microsoft's extreme right, any compromise would end up in Microsoft's favor. My wishes aren't worth much, so I can only exercise choice.

My choice was to move my Dell PC to Fedora Core (KDE is more responsive than Gnome on it), bought a Mac (used 20" G5 iMac running OSX Tiger $875), and keep the pair of HP laptops running WindowsXP until they die. I don't see Windows Vista in my future.

Reply Score: 5

pinky Member since:
2005-07-15

>Programs, on the other hand,are tools to perform work or play, and can be proprietary if they want.

Here i could use the same argument that you have used for OS:

"First of all, I look at an program as part of the machine, not an add-on. The computer without it is just a really big paper weight. Therefore, I would like the right to know what it is doing and how it is doing it. ALL programs should be open for public viewing."

Lets face it, unless you are a programmer you need more than a computer and a operating system (+ texteditor + compiler) to do something usefull with it. For most people a computer is a "paper weight" until they have the hardware, the OS and the programs! And they depend on the programs like on the hardware and on the OS. So i don't think you can draw the line between OS and programs. We are depending more and more on computers _and_ programs in our daily life and work so if we want to have control over this (raising) part of our life and want that everybody have the right to participate in this part of our life than programs have to be free (as in freedom!) too.

Reply Score: 3

twenex Member since:
2006-04-21

Don't forget that you have a choice as to whether to buy Fujitsu, Dell, HP, or a host of other manufacturers, sometimes all from the same shop. Even whole companies, who might well choose to equip everyone from server staff to laptop-bearers with the same manufacturer's machines, can opt for that one company to be any of the above.

So why, in the majority of PC shops can't I:

(a) Get a laptop with a non-Windows OS on it?

(b) Get a laptop with a non-Windows OS on it if I ask for one, without being fed bull like "it's illegal to sell computers without OSes";

or at least:

(c) Get a laptop with the option of putting my own OS of choice on it, at my risk and at my own expense?

Reply Score: 2

twenex Member since:
2006-04-21

I've heard that Dells are particularly Linux-unfriendly. Did you have any troouble?

Reply Score: 2

fsckit Member since:
2006-09-24

This comment wasn't directed at me but since I have a DELL at work I'll throw in my experience. I don't know if you mean laptops or desktops, but I'm going to assume you mean both. Right now I'm using a DELL Optiplex GX520 N series (no OS by default, hell yeah). I'm currently running OpenBSD on it and every little inch of hardware is 100% supported. At least 50+ people here are running the same machine with various Linux distros and so far there have been no issues. I can't speak for all DELL hardware but the GX520 is about as UNIX/Linux/BSD friendly as any box you'll ever run across.

Reply Score: 1

twenex Member since:
2006-04-21

In context I suppose my request refers to desktops, but I am more interested in how their laptops work. So thanks for that.

Reply Score: 2

HagerR15 Member since:
2005-07-25

My Dell is pretty old, a 2001 Dimension 4300 1.5GHz with some upgrades... 512MB RAM, NVIDIA GeForceFX 5200 w/128MB VRAM, Hauppage TV Card, Lite-On DVD-RW/CD-RW drive, SoundBlaster Live! sound card, etc.

Linux is pretty good on an older system, plus anything that didn't work well with it back then, I replaced with something that was compatible (modem, integrated sound). The only distribution that didn't work well with it was Mandrake (now Mandriva, of course). Mandrake 8.1 - 10.1 would only see USB devices if they were in the first plug of the first USB socket. No other distro had any problems with the Dell.

@pinky - I agree there's a fine line between the OS and programs as it becomes pretty useless, like you said, without basic programs. I guess it just depends on where you draw that line. Kernel, GUI, Communication protocols... things like that to me are part of the OS. Web Browser, Media Player, Mail Program (specifically Outlook Express) to me are definitely not essential to the OS itself and I should have the choice to remove them. Microsoft doesn't allow that. I realize they tied them into the OS, but that wasn't absolutely the only choice they had. They did it to specifically to try to gain market share and hurt competitors. I just don't like that and wish I had the choice.

Reply Score: 2

twenex Member since:
2006-04-21

Thanks for that info.

Reply Score: 2

These guys still don't get it ...
by WorknMan on Sat 16th Dec 2006 15:54 UTC
WorknMan
Member since:
2005-11-13

Trying to win people over with philosophical/political arguments. When are they ever going to learn? These guys do not know how to evangelize.

Reply Score: 2

My Choice
by Dudesdad on Sat 16th Dec 2006 15:57 UTC
Dudesdad
Member since:
2005-07-10

A computer is a collection of hardware. It will do nothing without something to direct it.

Software tells the hardware what to do.

I can't walk into an electronics store and buy this collection of hardware without buying some software. It is forced upon me.(some call it a tax.) It is most often a specific brand of software. Not of my choosing.

I can however get some choice (sometimes) to buy a collection of hardware with an alternative software.

It is usually the slowest and poorest put together selection of hardware the vendor has to offer.

I just want to buy the hardware collection please.

The software tax should be a purchase option and not a purchase requirement.

Please don't tell me about warranties and service of the software as it all comes with a disclaimer as to fitness to do it's job.

I just want the freedom to purchase what I want and use what I want.

If that make me a cultist or a zealot, then I am a cultist and a zealot.

So what.

Reply Score: 4

RE[5]: Fanatics
by Tuishimi on Sat 16th Dec 2006 16:18 UTC
Tuishimi
Member since:
2005-07-06

"Unless you'd claim Linux is somehow God to the FOSS community..."

He said that "Microsoft is the devil" not XP or Vista. Your god would not be the opposite equivalent. I think he is comparing the FSF to Microsoft as anti to one another.

This is a competition between two philosophies, one of open source/free software and the other of capitalism. Maybe.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Fanatics
by twenex on Sat 16th Dec 2006 16:33 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Fanatics"
twenex Member since:
2006-04-21

This is a competition between two philosophies, one of open source/free software and the other of capitalism. Maybe.

I disagree. I woudl say it's a competition between two philosophies, centralised and decentralised development.

I don't think we have a reason to trust centralised development of OS's any more than we have a reason to trust centralised development of processors, hardware or economies.

Reply Score: 5

I earn my living with proprietary software
by JeffS on Sat 16th Dec 2006 16:35 UTC
JeffS
Member since:
2005-07-12

... and I fully support the FSF

The company that I work for, where I do application development, web development, systems administration, training, and support, sells proprietary software.

And guess what? This software is built with Microsoft Visual C++ and VB6 (old version) and VB 2005 (new version). Our website, which I develop and manage, uses ASP and Internet Information Server.

And I support the FSF.

We also use Microsoft Exchange Server, with Microsoft Outlook. We also use MS Office extensively.

And I support the FSF.

At home, my wife and 4 year old daughter use our Windows Machine exclusively, and most of the time my wife prefers Internet Explorer - she uses Firefox, but some her favorite sites work better with IE (because they use MS extensions - ActiveX, jscript, whichever).

And I support the FSF.

I work and live very much in an MS and proprietary software world. But I prefer to use free software as much as possible. I'm certainly more of a pragmatist than say, Richard Stallman, because I'm not against proprietary software per se (I earn my living with it!). I think free software is much better for some things (more generalized things like an OS, Office suite, web server, etc), but proprietary software is better for other things (more specialized software, like my company's).

I just have a problem with proprietary software that applies draconian EULA's, or restricts "fair use", or is used to leverage monopoly power (like MS does).

And I'll reiterate that the four freedoms outlined by the FSF is just common sense stuff, commonly applied to most types of products, except, of course, a lot of proprietary software.

But, according to many of anti FSF, anti FOSS, posters on this train wreck of a thread, I'm a "cultist", a "fanatic", a member of the "taliban", a "communist", etc. etc.

That being said, I do think, in spite of all of the childish name calling, the anti FSF, anti FOSS, posters here have made some good points.

One of those is that the FSF, and FOSS advocates in general, have to get away from the "MS is evil", "Windows suck" stances, and move more towards "free software is an excellent, better alternative" stance.

That's because ultimately, when you are trying to sell something, or advocate something, to someone, you have to find out what is in it for them. You have to sell features/benefits. You have to find a pain point, and present a cure for the pain point. You have to make people want to move to your product or point of view. If you stick to just ethics, or your world view, or bashing MS, you just turn people away.

I do wish the FSF would emphasize more about producing FOSS driver alternatives for closed drivers, and producing more free alternatives in general, that are at least just as good, if not better. And I do wish they would spend more time promoting free stuff as alternatives to closed stuff, like Gnash, for instance, rather than criticizing non-free stuff.

The BadVista website, for instance, should be renamed something more positive, and should emphasize some of Vista's pitfalls, but always offer better alternatives.

But, I do appreciate the efforts of the FSF, and I fully support them. I sincerely believe we all (pro FOSS and anti FOSS folks alike) have benefited tremendously from what the FSF has done.

Peace.

Reply Score: 5

archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

Bravo for a fantastic post. Of course, those that *need* to paint the FSF and its supporters as fanatics will ignore it. After all, their anti-FOSS agendas cannot tolerate that many people support the FSF without necessarily agreeing with them on all points, or on every strategy.

I wonder how many of the anti-FOSS posters here are astroturfers? My guess is at least 25%...I hope when these people look into the mirror in the morning they realize that they have lost their soul, by telling lies for financial retribution...

Reply Score: 3

b3timmons Member since:
2006-08-26

Kudos to archiesteel, twenex, and others who have regularly exposed one of the nastiest problems on forums such as OSNews and "news" and "persectives" in the likes of Forbes, ZDNet, Cnet, etc.

Astroturfing and shilling are all too tempting to corporations and governments in general and there is a rich tradition of it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astroturfing
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shill

Knowing the content of those articles will help you think and communicate more responsibly. Let's be clear, astroturfers and shills know that they are lying or are being fake, yet they simply do not care that they are harming other people. The victims are everyone, but, in particular, gullible people. All of us can be gullible about various things, but can we all at least agree that we should learn to not be gullible?

An easy way is to just follow the money, who stands to gain and how much money might they get? Of course, this in itself is not enough to refute an opinion, but it certainly should give one pause and try to be more critical about possible double meanings, bad or irrelevant data, and faulty logic. People must realize that astroturfers and shills depend on these techniques to harm other people.

One way to learn is to see the pattern in a person's style of commenting. Do they come off as knowledgable and yet, when pressed, regularly are shown to use tricks or leave out important information in order to prop up their unsustainable positions? If so, it is silly to label such people as stupid or ignorant, when in fact they are plainly dishonest and want to harm you.

You may not believe this because I am posting it, and you disagree with my other opinions. All I ask is just to wake up, learn and use language skills and logic, and demand facts. The astroturfers and shills make their livelihoods on you not doing these things; they count on you being a fool; they want to exploit your familiarity with a platform, your comfort zone, and your nostalgia. Learn to spot them and help call them out on their pathological BS.

P.S. An honest mistake is to repeat nonsense, but the next time you are tempted to repeat an argument that is new to you, just pause first. Do you believe it just because some "guru" said it or because it was well-written? Or do you understand why it was said, why it is justified? Please realize that the repeated nonsense is exploited by the shills and astroturfers to harm others even more.

Edited 2006-12-16 19:41

Reply Score: 5

twenex Member since:
2006-04-21

Wow. Mod this guy up!

Reply Score: 1

ronaldst Member since:
2005-06-29

@b3timmons

Thank you for proving my point. I've been going against "astroturfers" and "shills" for a while now. And we all know that they aren't interested but just to push their selfish agenda. They need psychotherapy. Drinking too much koolaid will rot not just teeths but brains as well. ;)

Reply Score: 1

b3timmons Member since:
2006-08-26

@ronaldst: If calling me whatever you want turns you on, go for it. Criticizing, you know, the argument itself will take take a lot more work, however.

Edited 2006-12-16 21:15

Reply Score: 2

ronaldst Member since:
2005-06-29

@b3timmons

The arguments have been done over and over again. I guess you must be new to the Internet. You're only the millioneeth to bring this up. But if it makes you feel better and special. Go for it champ!

Reply Score: 0

RE[7]: Fanatics
by Tuishimi on Sat 16th Dec 2006 18:03 UTC
Tuishimi
Member since:
2005-07-06

Good point. Yes, I like your explanation better.

Reply Score: 2

b3timmons
Member since:
2006-08-26

First, I will admit that some of these guys are borderline in that they have somehow conned their own selves into believing their baloney. As the saying goes, "Don't get high on your own supply."

Second, these people are parasites. The interests they represent profit from victims whose judgement and understanding decay from the lies and fakeness.

Third, these parasites have evolved just as in biological systems. Suppose you were a cold-blooded CEO bent on domination. Breaking the law simply becomes a business decision: does the penalty of breaking it outweigh the expense of not? Of course, parasitic behaviors are largely legal, so you pay for them, and what do you care about the harm to society? Society cleaning up after your evil is just a negative externality:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality

Fourth, some of these parasites are very likable and appear to be reasonable. I highly recommend watching "The Corporation", an excellent documentary which features some unethical corporate workers, including a shill and an industrial spy. The spy is a bright, fascinating, likable fellow who speaks of intriguing experiences involving even the NSA, FBI, etc.! However, he treats it as a game and shows no guilt over what he does and is quite a chilling character on the whole.

Fifth, I appeal to the astroturfers and shills: the game is up. You are no longer just opposing other corporations to whom you can be indifferent. (Corporations have no ethics -- conservative economist Milton Friedman himself ridiculed the notion of a corporate social conscience.) However, it's not a game any longer for you: a significant group among whom you are opposing holds an ethical position, and you risk not only continuing being liars and cheats but now are also threating civil liberties at an even higher level than you are used to. If you want to continue playing your parasitic games, do so among more ordinary business models to reduce the inevitable guilt that you will feel otherwise.

Edited 2006-12-16 20:30

Reply Score: 5

b3timmons
Member since:
2006-08-26

A lasting form of damage upon the victim of these parasites is that not only is the victim's judgement and understanding eroded, but also the victim slowly grows cynical. They feel powerless to improve the world and ridicule others who try. They should try to reconnect with a loved one and gain more empathy to combat the disease of cynicism.

Edited 2006-12-16 21:49

Reply Score: 2

don't hate microsoft
by arielb on Sat 16th Dec 2006 23:01 UTC
arielb
Member since:
2006-11-15

I just think it will be inevitable that they will support freedom software just like IBM and Sun. IBM used to be the big bad guy...Microsoft doesn't have to be left behind.

Reply Score: 2

RE: don't hate microsoft
by twenex on Sun 17th Dec 2006 00:13 UTC in reply to "don't hate microsoft"
twenex Member since:
2006-04-21

I just think it will be inevitable that they will support freedom software just like IBM and Sun. IBM used to be the big bad guy...Microsoft doesn't have to be left behind.

Maybe, maybe not. Thousands of companies have gone under because of, or lived to tell the tale despite, the fact that they just will not accept open standards.

Commodore is an example of the former, Sony of the latter.

Reply Score: 2

Lets try to get things in perspective here
by blitze on Sat 16th Dec 2006 23:12 UTC
blitze
Member since:
2006-09-15

MS has been convicted of Monopolistic practices that killed competing products to prop up their products which tie into other products of theirs.

FSF are a bunch of idealists who like to paint a utopian world for computing. The reality needs to be somewhere in between but I'm siding more with FSF than with MS.

References to deals IBM had with the Nazi's even thought the actual business transactions occurred with the German Republic before Hitler took full control are irrelevant as IBM has moved on and as a business entity today, has a fairly clean operating sheet.

Within Vista and DRM the problem is not so much what MS wants to implement but what they are doing to placate tired old distribution giants in the film and music industry. Also MS needs to get over their authentication BS as it is nothing more than a PIA to the average computer user and is always able to be circumvented by "Pirates" no matter how hard they try.

Finally, anyone who sees Apple as being a salvation and alternative to Windows is a bigger fool than Nevil Chamberlain with his "Peace in our time" actions. Apple given the same opportunities as MS would be a more insidious company to deal with and the only thing that keeps them from being so is that the majority of the computing public realise this. The people who staunchly advocate usage of Mac's as an alternative to Windows are people with more money than sence who are sucked into glitzy marketing campaigns thinking they are "cool" in the process.

Reply Score: 3

Is this the...
by amaze_9 on Sun 17th Dec 2006 02:23 UTC
amaze_9
Member since:
2005-11-12

Is this the most comments ever to be posted about an OSNews.com article?

Reply Score: 1

RE[13]: NotParker has got to go @ hamster
by Barnabyh on Sun 17th Dec 2006 02:55 UTC
Barnabyh
Member since:
2006-02-06

>>Don't put words in my mouth. I don't resort to name calling. You start of by talking about me being patronising and then you start to claim i'll resort to namecalling. You wont see me resort to name calling.<<

Ok, sorry I have misjudged you. I apologize.

>> I've seen it a lot of times and they are getting kinda worn out.<<

Worn out indeed.

On a side note (OT) and not directed at you only, I've still got a paid for W2K lying around. It will get used again if I should ever have a need for some gaming again that only Windows can satisfy. IMO this was the finest OS ever from MS for home use and it never crashed, not once in four years. No DRM here and no Trusted Computing or Activation. This is where the road ends. Maybe someone at MS will take notice as to where things are going wrong, but they probably get more than compensated for the few users leaving by helping the entertainment industries enforce their restrictions.

Reply Score: 2

b3timmons
Member since:
2006-08-26

Upton Sinclair long ago figured out how cash is converted into opinions:

"It is hard to make a man understand something, when his salary depends on him not understanding it."

Reply Score: 2

What is wrong with Vista?
by jayaram on Sun 17th Dec 2006 15:22 UTC
jayaram
Member since:
2006-12-12

Why does FSF have to raise awareness of potential Vista buyers? Is there any reason the users of Vista won't feel the 'restrictions' imposed by Vista? FSF has been saying for years that proprietary software is evil, but the vast majority of people obviously don't feel that way.

So, is FSF hyperventilating again, or do they have a concern most users are likely to share? I didn't find anything on the campaign site itself that explains how Vista is worse than XP, for example.

Reply Score: 1

MollyC
Member since:
2006-07-04

Last night I read through slashdot's thread on this FSF BadVista campaign.
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/12/16/2252240

Shockingly, I found the slashdot thread to actually be discussing the merits of the BadVista site and the merits of FSF's campaign in general. On the other hand, this osnews thread, though quite long, degenerated into a Jihad against certain posters (calling for bannings and the like), and went into the gutter, went into tangents, and rarely actually discussed the issue at hand in a substantive way.

It's rare that slashdot would actually have a more substantive discussion on particular topic than osnews.

BTW, it appears that most slashdotters, surprisingly, are ripping FSF and its BadVista campaign to ribbons, including taking apart the FSF's assertions piece by piece. (I say this from the perspective of mainly reading the posts that are moderated high enough to be readily read without having into the individual subthreads.) Most are dismissing BadVista as a FUD campaign. When even slashdot is bashing the FSF and defending Vista, you know that the FSF is barking up the wrong tree with this very misguided effort in mudslinging zealotry.

Reply Score: 3

MollyC Member since:
2006-07-04

"Falsify the following simple argument showing that activities such as the "IP" underlying proprietary software (e.g., Vista) are unethical. Failing that, you will have to accept that you have been advocating unethical behavior, that BadVista.org is a good, important project, and that Vista itself should not be promoted."

OMG.
You have GOT to be joking.
I actually laughed out loud when I read the above. LOL
Wow, I guess there really are true believers that have it in their heads that simply creating/selling closed source software is inherently unethical.

Well, sorry, I'm not going to waste my time "falsifying" your belief; that would be like a Christian challenging someone to falsify his faith in Jesus as his Lord and savior (and the same goes for any other religious faith). I'm not putting down religious faith, just pointing out that there's no way to "falsify" someone's faith.

F/OSS is a religion to you, with RMS as high priest. And the nonbelievers are infidels, wicked, immoral, etc. That's fine, you go ahead a live by RMS's doctrines and decrees. But don't expect everyone else to buy into it, and definitely do NOT expect everyone to accept FSF's BadVista FUD on faith.

Edited 2006-12-17 23:11

Reply Score: 1

jayaram Member since:
2006-12-12

< When someone makes a copy of a certain piece of information that is published, there is no information lost. >

Try telling that to a book publisher. The loss is not just of the information. People that came up with a text or a program spent their time and effort on it, and there is nothing unethical or unreasonable about them expecting to be compensated for it. The governments fully support this right of the author, which is why there is a copyright, and unauthorized copying is punishable. Being able to modify somebody else's code is not a 'fundamental freedom' by any stretch of the imagination. FSF is preaching pure madness.

Reply Score: 2

b3timmons Member since:
2006-08-26

"< When someone makes a copy of a certain piece of information that is published, there is no information lost. >

Try telling that to a book publisher. The loss is not just of the information. People that came up with a text or a program spent their time and effort on it, and there is nothing unethical or unreasonable about them expecting to be compensated for it. The governments fully support this right of the author, which is why there is a copyright, and unauthorized copying is punishable. Being able to modify somebody else's code is not a 'fundamental freedom' by any stretch of the imagination. FSF is preaching pure madness.
"

(FWIW, the argument that you are criticizing does not come from the FSF but a website that I noted at the end.)

BTW, I fully agree that there is nothing unethical about expectation of compensation in itself. The remainder of this post contains a couple of followup arguments to your overall doubts, and if you later care to see another argument based on showing a flawed copyright system, I will provide that in a later post. Cheers.

-----
Why doesn't the [freedom of] copying, use, distribution, and modification of published information affect compensation and attribution?

The [freedom of] copying, use, distribution, and modification of published information doesn't directly affect compensation and attribution because what is at question is the control of copying using top-down coercion, and the use of the subsequent copies. There is nothing that says authors and inventors shouldn't be compensated or shouldn't be attributed. The ownership model, currently in use, is not a necessary condition for compensation and attribution.

Take for example the compulsory license model in music under current Copyright Law. This is a unique aspect of Copyright Law, in that it allows you to make phonorecords of musical compositions after it has been recorded once (usually referred to as "covering") as you wish, without permission, as long as an appropriate fee is paid per phonorecord distributed. There is absolutely no permission required, and the original authors have no real say over who covers the song and in what manner it is covered. It is easy to see why this, in general, advances the progress of music while at the same time providing compensation and attribution to the original authors. Musicians are free to improve upon the previous recordings of musical compositions, and compete in a capitalistic manner with the original performers of the musical composition.

Other models such as the service model, the broadcast model, the advertising model, and the tariff model all do not abridge the [freedom of] copying, use, distribution, and modification of published information, but yet compensate and attribute authors.

For my part, I believe if you make a profit off of someone else's labour, it is ethically right to share the profit. Proper attribution is necessary for the progress of the sciences and the arts because, if for nothing else other than cataloguing purposes, it says who did what. I am not saying that the compulsory license model is the best one, but it indicates clearly that a monopoly control over creativity is not a necessary condition for attribution and compensation.

Okay, the ethical part sounds good. But I'm not convinced about the economic issues. How will creators and inventors recover their investment? Won't competitors simply copy their works and undermine their profit?

I say above that "[t]here is nothing [in this document/philosophy] that says authors and inventors shouldn't be compensated or shouldn't be attributed." Does this mean that people would make as much money as they would without copyrights or patents? The answer cannot be known for sure without doing a parallel universe experiment (where one universe has "intellectual property" laws and the other does not). However, there is evidence to indicate that business will go on as usual. This evidence includes the fact that some of the greatest works were created and published, while the creators were able to make a living, before copyrights and patents came about a few hundred years ago, and the fact that certain businesses (like Red Hat Software) are able to raise substantive revenues even though everything they create is freely copiable.

More compelling, however, is the fact that only certain kinds of information is protected by copyright and patent law, yet information not protected can be the foundation for large business markets even though it can be freely copied. For example, ideas and facts are not protected by copyright and patent law: An individual or a business can spend thousands of hours and millions of dollars researching and testing new ideas to see what works best in a given situation, or on discovering and verifying facts (such as the listings in a telephone directory). In other words, there can be just as much effort put into coming up with an idea or discovering a set of facts (such as those used in the medical, the legal, and business communities). These results can generally be copied by a competitor and it's currently legal. Yet it doesn't stop people from coming up with ideas or compiling facts and making huge profits off of them (one example includes the delivery paradigms used by both FedEx and UPS).

The above paragraph also refutes the (circular) logic used by many "intellectual property" advocates: "if creators cannot control copying, they cannot make money, and therefore control of copying is the right thing to do." Notwithstanding the fact that controlling the freedoms of others in the name of economic profit alone isn't any sort of an ethical argument, the above paragraph also shows that control of copying isn't the only way one can make money and recover investments (and large sums of it too) as demonstrated in areas where large investment is required to produce information without protection against copying.

To hammer this point further, consider this (a better version of the above) argument often posed by pro-IP advocates: "without the economic incentive that arises from the control of copying of original works of authorship and inventions, authors and inventors will not make money, therefore they will not be able to create, and therefore the progress of the sciences and useful arts will be impeded." Now consider this parallel claim: "without the economic incentive that arises from the control of copying of ideas and facts, people who come up with and research ideas or discover and verify facts will not make money, therefore they will not come up with ideas or discover facts, and therefore the progress of the sciences and the arts will be impeded." The two claims are identical in logic and the analogy is highly similar (i.e., both refer to intangible entities which can be copied arbitrarily, and in both cases, huge economic investments maybe necessary for the intangible entities to exist). While the latter claim is not falsifiable without running a parallel universe experiment, the former claim is factually not true. That is, even though there are no restrictions on the copying of ideas or facts, people constantly come up with ideas and discover facts, make money from these ideas or facts, and the sciences and the arts progress as usual.

The economic situation when copying is unrestricted is analogous to a situation where exists a product X whose cost is $x, and a product another Y (very similar or identical to X) whose cost is $y, where $y << $x ($y is much less than $x). These situations occur frequently in the marketplace, and people marketing X routinely triumph (economically) over people marketing Y.
-----
(source: http://www.ram.org/ramblings/philosophy/fmp/copying_primer.html)

Edited 2006-12-18 08:10

Reply Score: 2

b3timmons
Member since:
2006-08-26

"Wow, I guess there really are true believers that have it in their heads that simply creating/selling closed source software is inherently unethical.

Well, sorry, I'm not going to waste my time "falsifying" your belief; that would be like a Christian challenging someone to falsify his faith in Jesus as his Lord and savior (and the same goes for any other religious faith). There's no way to do it. FLOSS is a religion to you, with RMS as high priest. That's fine, you go ahead a live by RMS's doctrines. But don't expect everyone else to buy into it, and definitely do NOT expect everyone to accept FSF's BadVista FUD on faith.
"

Do you not see the three instances of your hypocritical behavior?

(1) Before, you complained about people not sticking to the topic, e.g., goodness or badness of Vista, BadVista.org, etc. Yet when you are challenged to defend Vista as not being unethical, you complain about being challenged and instead evade the topic.

(2) You implicitly acknowledge that ethics exists (and thus ethical arguments which underlie lawmaking), yet when you are confronted with an ethical stance opposite of your own to falsify, you complain that it is religion, as if ethics conveniently does not exist when your own position is challenged. Maybe you do not realize that ethical arguments can be falsified:
http://www.answers.com/topic/falsifiability

(3) Consider the position "Non-free software is unethical." On the one hand, even though I presented a simple ethical argument for this position, you just ignored it and called me religious. Yet you implicitly hold the opposite position without being able to justify it and yet implicitly presume to consider yourself not religious.

Why not just suck it up, lose the hypocrisy, and deal with the argument?

Edited 2006-12-18 00:31

Reply Score: 3

b3timmons Member since:
2006-08-26

I apologize to readers, including MollyC, for making a mistake on the concept "falsifiable". In fact, ethical arguments are not usually falsifiable.

However, the ethical response to my mistake would have been to simply correct my usage if that usage was known to be wrong. Of course, my mistake -- using "falsify" instead of "find a flaw in" -- does not in any way excuse her hypocrisy as identified.

The proper way to criticize an ethical argument is to find a flaw in its assumptions or reasoning (not the same as falsifying something!). Thus, the proper challenge to MollyC is:

Find a flaw in the ethical argument originally given.


Again, I apologize to all readers for my ignorant word choice.

Edited 2006-12-18 02:50

Reply Score: 2

well done, FSF:
by deb2006 on Mon 18th Dec 2006 21:39 UTC
deb2006
Member since:
2006-06-26

It needs to be put up on the wall, because most people don't even realize what's being done to them. The methods of MS are - well, more or less - silently progressed by that company.

I don't see any valid point in denying this truth, and I fail to see why people on this board are often not able to comprehend that.

Reply Score: 1