Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 9th Aug 2005 22:00 UTC
Legal Andy Martin of The Committee to Fight Microsoft on Tuesday announced his intentions to block Microsoft from releasing its Windows Vista operating system. Martin intends to ask Microsoft for an unconditional warranty that the operating system is free of bugs that could result in security vulnerabilities. He argues that no company in America gets away with selling a "defective" product the way Microsoft does.
Thread beginning with comment 16371
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Idiot
by Thom_Holwerda on Wed 10th Aug 2005 10:32 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Idiot"
Thom_Holwerda
Member since:
2005-06-29

The guy has a series of valid complaints, both against Microsoft, and the software industry in general.

Would you say the same when someone sues Red Hat on the same grounds? I highly doubt so.

Like most of the rest of the world, you are a sheep, nothing more, and nothing less.

Because I disagree with this guy-- I'm a sheep. Right. Very sane logic, I must say.

You jump when the politicians say jump, you even ask politely "how high would you like me to jump?". Pathetic.

And can you be so kind as to provide me and the rest of the readers with information backing this up?

Just because you don't agree with it, doesn't mean he doesn't have valid points. Of course, we all know that OSnews.com staff are allowed to do what they want, don't we?

Right. That *really* explains why I posted this newsitem, even though I disagreed with its content. Really, you are making less sense each time you post. Just do and the rest of the readers a favour by trying to make a little more sense next time.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[4]: Idiot
by ralph on Wed 10th Aug 2005 10:39 in reply to "RE[3]: Idiot"
ralph Member since:
2005-07-10

"Would you say the same when someone sues Red Hat on the same grounds? I highly doubt so."

I fail to see the relevance of this accusation for the subject at hand. If you don't think he has valid points, point out why they aren't valid, but trying to paint people you disagree with as biased is only a bad substitute for an argument.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[5]: Idiot
by Thom_Holwerda on Wed 10th Aug 2005 10:43 in reply to "RE[4]: Idiot"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

I'm trying to expose the hyppocracy that's rampant in these sorts of matters. When someone sues MS, it's by definition on valid points, but when someone sues "Linux", it's by definition always based on nothing. When someone breaks a commercial license (ie. Apple and OS X for x86) it's all great and a victory for freedom, but when someone violates the GPL, it's death and decay.

That's what's pissing me off. Badly.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[5]: Idiot
by on Wed 10th Aug 2005 14:29 in reply to "RE[4]: Idiot"
Member since:

How do you fail to see the logic? Why not hold RedHat to the same scrutny that you, adnd Andy Martin, is trying to hold Microsoft acountable for. Redhat -- Linux in general -- has as much, if not more security issues and has the same challenges when it comes to providing a secure and stable OS as Microsoft has. Both have a large user base and have to account for multiple configurations.

The truth of the matter is you are bias against MS.

Jim

Reply Parent Score: 0

RE[4]: Idiot
by morgoth on Wed 10th Aug 2005 12:05 in reply to "RE[3]: Idiot"
morgoth Member since:
2005-07-08

Quote: "Would you say the same when someone sues Red Hat on the same grounds? I highly doubt so."

"both against Microsoft, and the software industry in general"

I think that sums it pretty much up, you quoted myself and then [deliberately?] tried to misquote myself in an attempt to bolster your own argument.

Quote: "Because I disagree with this guy-- I'm a sheep. Right. Very sane logic, I must say."

No, because of the very arguments that you presented in a previous post, which is what I replied to. Just because it's a large, corporate company, or has lots of users, doesn't mean it's either right, or good. Your previous post inferred that.

Quote: "And can you be so kind as to provide me and the rest of the readers with information backing this up?"

Your original post said that (and I'll quote):

"According to this guy's logic, I can sue politicians because they lie their assess off (maybe he should sue Bush and Blair because there weren't any weapons of mass destruction, even though they said so) ?"

And basically implied that it was wrong to make politicians accountable. That is why I called you a sheep. Like most other people in society, it's now become acceptable to ignore the lies that our politicians sow, because, we just want to "live our own lives". Only if a political issue directly affects us, do we become upset. If it doesn't affect us, we don't care. We ignore it, because with ignorance, we feel better. If we ignore a problem, we don't feel bad, because we don't have to worry about the problem, or why the problem exists, or how to fix the problem. You cannot fix something, unless you recognise that it has a fault. Of course, in order to explain this logic to yourself Thom, I've had to wander right off topic.

Quote: "Right. That *really* explains why I posted this newsitem, even though I disagreed with its content."

You posted it [I suspect], because there was nothing better to do, it's sensationalism at it's best, and that attracts readers. More readers, means more advertisers, which means more money. At least osnews.com is posting anti Microsoft news, it makes a good turn from the anti Linux, anti GPL, anti FSF, anti Richard Stallman stories that usually abound.

Quote: "Really, you are making less sense each time you post."

I disagree. I think you're disliking myself more and more each time I post. Not that I really care what you think about me, or my beliefs.

Quote: "Just do and the rest of the readers a favour by trying to make a little more sense next time."

Funny thing is Thom, you seem to be the only person that took offense to [any of] my posts. In fact, several of them got modded up by others. That usually happens when people agree with your comments, thoughts, beliefs or ideals.

I find it hypocritical that osnews staff can post, and say what they want, but not be responsible and be part of the modding system, and be modded down where necessary. But then, I find many things hypocritical these days.

You really must try better to construct valid arguments :-)

Dave

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[5]: Idiot
by Thom_Holwerda on Wed 10th Aug 2005 12:16 in reply to "RE[4]: Idiot"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Your original post said that (and I'll quote):

"According to this guy's logic, I can sue politicians because they lie their assess off (maybe he should sue Bush and Blair because there weren't any weapons of mass destruction, even though they said so) ?"

And basically implied that it was wrong to make politicians accountable.


Huh? Look at what I'm saying: "maybe *he* should sue..." You are mis-interpreting my words there. Nowhere in that post did I say politicians *should not* be held accountable; I used politicians as an example because he himself basically is one. Get it?

You should really read my blog sometimes if you think what you posted above about me being a sheep. You'll be pleasantly (or not pleasantly? I don't know your political viewpoints) surprised.

You posted it [I suspect], because there was nothing better to do, it's sensationalism at it's best, and that attracts readers. More readers, means more advertisers, which means more money.

In case you don't know, we don't get payed here at OSNews. We work on a voluntary basis. I couldn't give a rat's ass about imaginary income. The only income I care about is the cold hard cash that's on my paycheck from the shop I work at.

At least osnews.com is posting anti Microsoft news, it makes a good turn from the anti Linux, anti GPL, anti FSF, anti Richard Stallman stories that usually abound.

Really? We do? Funny, in that anti-Microsoft thread a few weeks ago we got accused of being anti-MS... And in that KDE thread to be anti-Gnome... And in that X thread that we're anti-Y...

*Sigh*.

Reply Parent Score: 5