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 187286
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:

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

Is the absence of evidence that, say, the MS/Novell deal is bad, isn't proof that it's not bad? You basically contradicted your previous claim right here and now.

Are taking a page out of NotParker's book, destroying your own positions? Thanks, but really, I don't need the help.

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 do have a sense of humor, it's just that you weren't funny. Deal with that, Betty.

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).

Listen, Betty: I don't have a "side." I produce proprietary software for a living. So get that right out of your head right now.

As for the studies, some make interesting points, however none of them are conclusive one way or the other (and two don't even deal with bugs at all, but with security issues - stay on topic, Betty).

I myself have no opinion on this. I merely stated that the case could be argued for open-source, one could just as easily argue the other side. However, calling people "cultists" and claiming that anyone who disagrees with you is a "zealot" is not making a rational argument.

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.

Who's talking about bigots? We're talking about people who are undecided - and believe me, you make such a poor case representing your "side" that you're most probably driving those undecided away from your point of view.

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:

I don't think it does, and I also object to the use of the term in that context. To me, zealots do not base their arguments on reason, but on faith.

You believe passionately in your point of view,

Meh, not really. I'm passionate about a lot of things, but free vs. commercial software isn't one of them. I do like it when people discuss things rationally, without resorting to insults or trying to misrepresent what the other side is saying.

you're intractable in your opinions (a reading of your posts bears this out),

A common mistake: I am not intractable (and in fact I have admitted to being wrong before), it's simply that I choose my arguments wisely. I don't like starting a debate when I'm not certain of my position. In this case, it's quite easy: strawman arguments and ad hominem attacks should not be part of rational debate.

and you seem to care intently about converting others to your way of thinking;

I try to defend what I believe to be true. There's nothing zealotous about that. "Convincing" people is not the same as "converting" - again, you use religious imagery in an effort to discredit those you disagree with. Are you even capable of formulating an argument without resorting to such weasel words? I'm starting to doubt it.

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.

Yes, note the word: "convince."

Well, don't you want to convince people that you're right? Or do you simply want to provoke people into reacting emotionally by making inflammatory declarations? Because you know what *that* means...

Reply Parent Score: 1