Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 11th May 2011 20:35 UTC
Google It was inevitable, of course, and rightfully so: Google is having its big I/O conference, so we have to talk about the lack of Honeycomb's source code. While not violating any licenses, the lack of source code doesn't sit well with many - including myself - so it only makes sense people are asking Google about it. Andy Rubin confirmed we're never going to see Honeycomb's sources as a standalone release. He also explained what 'open' means for Android.
Thread beginning with comment 472709
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Comment by shmerl
by Thom_Holwerda on Wed 11th May 2011 21:29 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by shmerl"
Thom_Holwerda
Member since:
2005-06-29

And of course Thom is going to find this to be all ok - this is Google, purveyor of all that is good, wholesome and right in the world...


You're banned forever from now on. This is clearly wrong as anyone who ACTUALLY READ THE GODDAMN 435743965 ARTICLES I HAVE WRITTEN ON THIS SUBJECT WOULD KNOW. I'm SO sick of your continuous and clearly wrong accusations about me.

Edited 2011-05-11 21:30 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by shmerl
by Finchwizard on Wed 11th May 2011 22:22 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by shmerl"
Finchwizard Member since:
2006-02-01

Someone needs to take a deep breath and go for a walk.

You're a editor of the site and all I see is a child throwing a little tantrum party because what a user has said seems to hit a little too close to the truth for your liking.

Reply Parent Score: 7

RE[4]: Comment by shmerl
by Thom_Holwerda on Wed 11th May 2011 22:27 in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by shmerl"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

You're a editor of the site and all I see is a child throwing a little tantrum party because what a user has said seems to hit a little too close to the truth for your liking.


You must be new here ;) . This guy's been consistently trolling for a long time now, and I've been getting consistent complaints from readers for a long time now. On any other site, he'd been banned months ago, but I'm actually pretty relaxed about these things. However, when the consistent lies and personal attacks just keep on coming, even though the very article he is commenting to - among many - disqualifies his lies outright, then, well, I'm fully within my right to put a stop to it.

We have enough people in here who disagree with me on a regular basis without ever resorting to trolling and structural insipid lying about me.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[4]: Comment by shmerl
by _txf_ on Wed 11th May 2011 22:30 in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by shmerl"
_txf_ Member since:
2008-03-17

Someone needs to take a deep breath and go for a walk.

You're a editor of the site and all I see is a child throwing a little tantrum party because what a user has said seems to hit a little too close to the truth for your liking.


Except it isn't the truth or anything close to it.

But either way there is no point getting annoyed by the original poster, he is probably the most marked down commenter on this site. I seldom ever see any of his comments get a positive rating (they're usually marked down into oblivion...not a sign of a meaningful but unpopular comment, more of a sign of useless trolling)

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[4]: Comment by shmerl
by molnarcs on Wed 11th May 2011 23:11 in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by shmerl"
molnarcs Member since:
2005-09-10

That child is your typical hit and run troll - he posts nonsense, reasonable people devote time and energy to reply, but he completely ignores them and posts the same shit over and over again in new threads. I think some annoyance is justified in this case.
Take a look here: http://www.osnews.com/thread?472631
and here: http://www.osnews.com/thread?471309
and well... take a look yourself.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[3]: Comment by shmerl
by hackus on Wed 11th May 2011 22:31 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by shmerl"
hackus Member since:
2006-06-28

You wouldn't happen to belong on the Council of Foreign Relations or the Bilderberg Group would you?

Seems like that post is more along their mindset, not on a forum discussing OS related topics in licensing.

-Hack

Reply Parent Score: 0

RE[3]: Comment by shmerl
by Laurence on Thu 12th May 2011 09:38 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by shmerl"
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

mrhasbean has now gone.

Quite an apt user name in hindsight.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[3]: Comment by shmerl
by flypig on Thu 12th May 2011 11:58 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by shmerl"
flypig Member since:
2005-07-13

You're banned forever from now on.


I don't tend to agree with mrhasbean's comments, and I can understand your frustration at being accused of bias, but it's a shame if you think it's necessary to ban.

Apart from the attacks on other people's judgement (which are wholly unnecessary), mrhasbean tends to express valid opinions (they appear to be genuinely held, even if they're not true), and personally I like to see the other side of the argument put forcefully at times.

I'd urge you to reconsider.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: Comment by shmerl
by WereCatf on Thu 12th May 2011 14:39 in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by shmerl"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

"You're banned forever from now on.


I don't tend to agree with mrhasbean's comments, and I can understand your frustration at being accused of bias, but it's a shame if you think it's necessary to ban.
"

I personally see mrhasbean as a damn troll, but even I disagree with banning him. I am probably a little too lenient with people, it takes a lot for me to even kick someone off temporarily and a whole lot more for me to ban someone.

And well, he did do some good, too: even though he tries to troll and berate Google, Thom etc. he mostly just manages to instead incite people shooting down his arguments and posts and thus giving lots of useful reading for people, especially people who do not frequent OSNews that much or don't know enough about the topic at hand. To say it in an other way: he posts negative comments, but that just generates more often than not lots of insightful, positive comments and thus the end result is just good, not bad.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[4]: Comment by shmerl
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Thu 12th May 2011 16:01 in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by shmerl"
Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

Yeah, its sorta tough to distinguish between rampant fanboy-ism, stupidity,and out right trolls.

I'm not sure which one of those three he was. I don't blame Thom for his frustration, but I've been banned from some political sites as well for stupid reasons such as trying to bring consistent logic into discussions.

I don't mind the ban based on the history.I hope that Thom will continue to extend just as much patience towards users as he showed for this guy.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by shmerl
by jboss1995 on Thu 12th May 2011 21:01 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by shmerl"
jboss1995 Member since:
2007-05-02

This is a little strong but Tom is right. No matter what he says people are there to criticize him. Cut him some slack, by far he is the biggest contributor of articles to this sight. Don't be so discouraging.

Reply Parent Score: 1