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 187189
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
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

tomcat Member since:
2006-01-06

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...

Try to remember that absence of evidence isn't proof of anything.

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?

Some people like to think that they have a sense of humor. But they don't. Clearly, you fall into that category. It was parody. Deal with it. Francis.

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

Sure, read these sources as a starting point... (But I will predict in advance that your side will immediately go into hit-and-run-attack mode in trying to hang the "Microsoft shill" canard around the necks of each of these authors).

http://www.ehealthinformation.com/booklets/roi/Open_Source.htm

"The main conclusion is that open source reviews are, at best, not much better than the peer reviews that one would expect to see in a commercial setting."


http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/02/12/open_and_closed_security/

"Open and closed approaches to security are basically equivalent, with opening a system up to inspection helping attackers and defenders alike."


http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0ISJ/is_2_44/ai_n15399770/pg...

"Which is more secure: closed or open-source software? Unfortunately the answer is not that clear. In general, both FOSS and proprietary systems are roughly equivalent in terms of security and reliability. Neither is inherently more secure or reliable than the other. Analytical arguments made in favor of either approach are not conclusive."

http://www.stevemcconnell.com/ieeesoftware/eic06.htm

"The emphasis on code-level peer review gives the typical open-source project a leg up on the average closed-source project, which uses little or no review. But considering how ineffective the average project is, comparing open-source projects to the "average" closed-source project sets a pointless standard of comparison. Leading-edge organizations use a combination of practices that produce better quality, shorter schedules, and lower development costs than average, and software development effectiveness at that level makes a more useful comparison.

One of the bedrock realities of software development is that requirements and design defects cost far more to correct at coding or system testing time than they cost to correct upstream. The software industry has collected reams of data on this phenomenon: generally you can expect to spend from 10 to 100 times as much to correct an upstream defect downstream as you would spend to fix the same defect upstream.

Considering open source’s focus on downstream defect correction with significantly redundant peer reviews, for now the approach looks more like a shell game than a better mousetrap. It is appealing at first glance because so many people contribute effort that is free or unaccounted for. The results of this effort are much more visible than the effort itself. But when you add up the total effort contributed—both seen and unseen—open source’s use of labor looks awfully inefficient."

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

Those are your words, not mine, and I would appreciate if you wouldn't try to cram them down my throat. Let's just put it this way: I have no hidden hopes or desires of converting bigots to my way of thinking. I'm merely expressing my point of view.

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...

Hardly. I think that many people might conclude that BOTH of us are zealots, to one degree or another. You may not like that term, but it fits you: You believe passionately in your point of view, you're intractable in your opinions (a reading of your posts bears this out), and you seem to care intently about converting others to your way of thinking; in fact, you revealed this most intently when you wrote, "Don't you want to convince people that you're right?" in your previous post.

Reply Parent Score: 1