Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 30th Nov 2006 22:51 UTC
Novell and Ximian Novell on Nov. 30 announced its latest NetWare upgrade operating system, the Linux-powered Novell Open Enterprise Server 2. OES, which will be based on Novell's SLES 10, is designed to be a drop-in replacement for Novell NetWare servers, and a direct competitor to Microsoft's Server 2003.
Thread beginning with comment 187183
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
archiesteel
Member since:
2005-07-02

No, the analogy doesn't fit perfectly, because there are many among the community who have reacted strongly against the deal for *rational* reasons. Ballmer's thin-veiled threats a couple of days after the deal didn't help either.

Seriously, guys, you should stop trying to demonize those whom you disagree with. That's called an ad hominem attack, and it's not an acceptable debate technique. Not to mention that your own obsessive focus on this, couple with constant exaggeration and ridicule (please give me *one* example of a FOSS advocate claiming that Open Source cures cancer) makes you two look much more like fanatics than those you are decrying.

Claiming that Open Source is better or has fewer bugs is not necessarily self-deluding. One could say that it's *debatable*, i.e. than the merits of such statements can be debated using *rational* arguments, not insults and strawman arguments.

Until you two actually crawl out of the gutter and start making *rational* arguments instead of attacking and demonizing those who disagree with you, you'll continue to be treated as trolls and actually do *more* damage than good to the positions you defend.

Don't you want to convince people that you're right? Because right now, that's not what you're doing at all. People sitting on the fence about this issue are much more likely to be driven away by your immature attacks and strawman arguments than they are agreeing with you. Think about it.

Reply Parent Score: 2

tomcat Member since:
2006-01-06

No, the analogy doesn't fit perfectly, because there are many among the community who have reacted strongly against the deal for *rational* reasons.

None of the reasons that I've heard is even remotely rational: "Microsoft is evil. Microsoft made a pact with Novell. Ergo, Novell is evil"; "It's a violation of the GPL"; "The deal legitimizes Microsoft's claims of patent violations in Linux"; "The deal protects Novell and hangs us all out to dry"; "Microsoft is trying to co-opt Linux by promoting the emergence of a single competitor"; etc. None of these claims is supported by objective reality because there simply is no evidence.

Ballmer's thin-veiled threats a couple of days after the deal didn't help either.

It didn't hurt, either. The cultists have tried to marginalize Ballmer by calling him "Monkey Boy". Seriously, what do they care about what he has to say?

Seriously, guys, you should stop trying to demonize those whom you disagree with. That's called an ad hominem attack, and it's not an acceptable debate technique. Not to mention that your own obsessive focus on this, couple with constant exaggeration and ridicule

It's not an ad hominem to point out a reasonably-supportable set of facts which happen to be objectionable to you. I'm not substituting an attack on you as a replacement for rational debate. No, in fact, what I'm doing is pointing out that rational debate is not possible with many people who repeatedly attack, mod down and suppress opposing viewpoints, and slavishly adhere to OSS dogma.

(please give me *one* example of a FOSS advocate claiming that Open Source cures cancer) makes you two look much more like fanatics than those you are decrying.

It was parody. Lighten up, Francis.

Claiming that Open Source is better or has fewer bugs is not necessarily self-deluding. One could say that it's *debatable*, i.e. than the merits of such statements can be debated using *rational* arguments, not insults and strawman arguments.

Uh, yeah, it is self-deluding, because it's not supportable by any objective set of facts. In fact, repeated studies have shown no significant difference between engineering development methodologies. Human beings produce code. Human beings are flawed. There's only so much that a methodology will do to help you. Open vs closed source doesn't really alter the number of defect ratio per line of code entered.

Until you two actually crawl out of the gutter and start making *rational* arguments instead of attacking and demonizing those who disagree with you, you'll continue to be treated as trolls and actually do *more* damage than good to the positions you defend.

Fine. Whatever. I'm not here to convince you of anything. I'm here to discuss substantial issues and, if you don't like what I have to say, then bollocks to you.

Don't you want to convince people that you're right? Because right now, that's not what you're doing at all. People sitting on the fence about this issue are much more likely to be driven away by your immature attacks and strawman arguments than they are agreeing with you. Think about it.

People sitting on the fence understand very well that many people posting on this discussion board are zealots like yourself. It won't surprise them when I merely point this out to them.

Reply Parent Score: 1

archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

None of the reasons that I've heard is even remotely rational: "Microsoft is evil. [...] etc. None of these claims is supported by objective reality because there simply is no evidence.

There's also no evidence to the contrary, is your own position then not subjective too?

In any case, I don't profess that some people are wrong, however throwing insults at them isn't any better. If you have evidence that Microsoft is not predatory, please present it to us...

It didn't hurt, either. The cultists have tried to marginalize Ballmer by calling him "Monkey Boy". Seriously, what do they care about what he has to say?

He is the CEO of the worlds largest company (by market cap). When he makes thinly-veiled threats of charging money to every Linux users out there, I think it's reasonable to care what he has to say. (A good thing that people cared, too, because he was forced to partially retract - or at lease nuance - his positions.)

It's not an ad hominem to point out a reasonably-supportable set of facts which happen to be objectionable to you.

It *is* an ad hominem attack when you accuse people you disagree with to be fanatics, zealots and/or cultists. In fact, that is *exactly* what an ad hominem attack is. At least have the honesty to recognize it.

in fact, what I'm doing is pointing out that rational debate is not possible with many people who repeatedly attack, mod down and suppress opposing viewpoints

So, what you're saying is that it is not possible to have a rational debate with you? Good to know.

It was parody. Lighten up, Francis.

It was not parody, it was exaggeration inserted into an enumeration of other points in order to insinuate that those who disagree with you make irrational claims. Do you see me using any such dishonest rhetorical tricks?

And my name isn't Francis, Tom.

In fact, repeated studies have shown no significant difference between engineering development methodologies.

I'm sure you can point us towards several example of such studies by non-biased sources?

Open vs closed source doesn't really alter the number of defect ratio per line of code entered.

That's debatable. Certainly the methodology alone isn't sufficient, however one could argue that FOSS encourages code review more since the code is open to all and there is no deadline to put out a finished product.

The key word here is "debatable", i.e. putting forward arguments in a civil manner, listening to counter-arguments and oppose counter-arguments of your own. That does *not* include misrepresenting the other person's arguments and insulting them, something which you and NotParker never cease to indulge in.

Fine. Whatever. I'm not here to convince you of anything. I'm here to discuss substantial issues and, if you don't like what I have to say, then bollocks to you.

In other words, you admit that you cannot indulge in rational debate, and will continue to insult people you disagree with. Interesting.

People sitting on the fence understand very well that many people posting on this discussion board are zealots like yourself. It won't surprise them when I merely point this out to them.

Once again, insults instead of arguments. Allow me to theorize that they are much more likely to be put off by your aggressive, uncivil manners and lack of rational arguments than by my calm, poised tone and carefully-constructed counter-arguments...

Reply Parent Score: 1