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 472718
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: Comment by shmerl
by Thom_Holwerda on Wed 11th May 2011 22:27 UTC 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[5]: Comment by shmerl
by Finchwizard on Wed 11th May 2011 22:38 in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by shmerl"
Finchwizard Member since:
2006-02-01

Think you'll find I've been around for quite a long time.

Was browsing before you even registered and signed up not long after.

So I know full well how the site has grown over the last 5 years. And the hatred you have for everything Apple. It's always been pretty clear. But as of late there seems to be even more hatred and a blind eye towards everything Google does.

And I still think there's far too much personal opinions in news items that should be more blog related.

Whatever floats your boat I suppose. Having to manage large amounts of both Macs and PC's along with Linux in a network I'm always amazed at some peoples lack of real world experience with what they're reporting on, but love to have an opinion on it.

Edited 2011-05-11 22:42 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[6]: Comment by shmerl
by Thom_Holwerda on Wed 11th May 2011 22:50 in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by shmerl"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

So I know full well how the site has grown over the last 5 years. And the hatred you have for everything Apple. It's always been pretty clear. But as of late there seems to be even more hatred and a blind eye towards everything Google does.


Typed on my MacBook Air.

And a blind eye towards everything Google does? Do you even READ the stuff I write? *sigh*

"While not violating any licenses, the lack of source code doesn't sit well with many - including myself"

"As I said in my earlier story about this, while I understand Google's reasoning, I see this is a massive cop-out. Sure, they're not violating any licenses, and it doesn't come close to the structural (L)GPL license violations by Apple, but I personally believe that you shouldn't lock away BSD/Apache/MIT-licensed code just because you took shortcuts or because you're afraid of what cheapo OEMs might do with it."

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[6]: Comment by shmerl
by Shane on Thu 12th May 2011 00:57 in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by shmerl"
Shane Member since:
2005-07-06

Unfortunately this site reads like a blog. Has for several years now. It's full of opinion pieces and light on technical articles. The "my take" angle attached to most posts basically mimics what Gruber does at Daring Fireball. If you want journalism read Ars Technica.

Edited 2011-05-12 00:58 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[5]: Comment by shmerl
by flanque on Wed 11th May 2011 23:35 in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by shmerl"
flanque Member since:
2005-12-15

Fair's fair Thom, this site is full of trolls.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[5]: Comment by shmerl
by Odwalla on Thu 12th May 2011 00:52 in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by shmerl"
Odwalla Member since:
2006-02-01

You lost me at the whole Lord's name in vain vulgarity you put in your reply, Thom. Regardless of what your personal views are you are the editor of a site that has visitors with varying religious beliefs. As the editor you should respect that and refrain from sentiments that some will find offensive.

You were probably justified in your banning of someone who you claim has been twisting your words. The problem is that your insensitive response has now made you the antagonist.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[6]: Comment by shmerl
by Fergy on Thu 12th May 2011 09:10 in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by shmerl"
Fergy Member since:
2006-04-10

You lost me at the whole Lord's name in vain vulgarity you put in your reply, Thom. Regardless of what your personal views are you are the editor of a site that has visitors with varying religious beliefs. As the editor you should respect that and refrain from sentiments that some will find offensive.

I disagree. It would make a very boring site when you have to refrain from sentiments that some will find offensive. You can make fun of the belief that Apple makes the best products in the world and you can make fun of the belief that there is a skydaddy.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[6]: Comment by shmerl
by WereCatf on Thu 12th May 2011 14:33 in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by shmerl"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

You lost me at the whole Lord's name in vain vulgarity you put in your reply, Thom. Regardless of what your personal views are you are the editor of a site that has visitors with varying religious beliefs. As the editor you should respect that and refrain from sentiments that some will find offensive.


There are THOUSANDS of religions on Earth and thus no matter what you're saying you're bound to offend atleast one person. It simply is not possible to avoid offending anyone, not with that many religions.

Hell, there's even literally a registered Church of the Jedi which idolizes jedi and their ideologies. Talking about lightsabers as children's toys or the jedi as fantasy would seriously offend them.

As such; no, I disagree with you. Someone saying God or Jesus or anything similar should be allowed, especially if they don't share your religion. You have the right to be offended as much as you wish, just as others have the right to free speech.

The problem is that your insensitive response has now made you the antagonist.


To be honest, your response is just as insensitive.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[5]: Comment by shmerl
by Aragorn992 on Thu 12th May 2011 07:11 in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by shmerl"
Aragorn992 Member since:
2007-05-27

Fair enough. Still, part of the fun I get from this site is reading his bullshit comments and your replies ;)

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[5]: Comment by shmerl
by morglum666 on Thu 12th May 2011 12:21 in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by shmerl"
morglum666 Member since:
2005-07-06

Disclaimer: I've been visiting and posting on this site for 5 ish years.

Thom runs the site. He knows if someone is being an asshole. Put it into perspective - who would know best if a user is just obnoxious?

The funny thing about the Internet is the lack of accountability in general. When someone like Thom starts to make a user for which he provided a free service accountable, the Internet world of keyboard commandos gets up in arms..

Morglum

Reply Parent Score: 3