Miguel de Icaza wrote: > Microsoft in this case is doing the right thing: they are assisting > the Mono group to have an open source implementation that will be > fully compatible with their implementation
Well well, the big guns are out in full force this weekend, aren't they?
While you're here, please allow me to take this opportunity to ask a few pertinent (although not entirely impertinent) questions:
1) ... What proportion of Mono uses Microsoft's patented technology, including that which is is part of the ECMA specifications?
2) ... To what degree do you trust ECMA and the RAND covenant to not sue, for the use of any Microsoft Intellectual Property?
3) ... To what degree do you Trust Microsoft, either in terms of their promises; their motivations; or their commitment to a competing platform like Linux?
> They even took an extra step and will distribute their optimized > media codecs (as a binary blob) for users. Those that feel strongly > about not using binary blobs, can just use FFMPEG (this is what is > supported by default if you compile from source code anyways).
4) ... Do you foresee a point in the future where access to much of the Web might be impossible, or at least extraordinarily difficult, without the use of Silverlight, much like Microsoft tried to do with ActiveX and other proprietary; encumbered; and non-standard technology during the Netscape years?
5) ... Do you further forsee the likelihood that the binary blobs, that you speak of, become a hard dependency in order to fully utilise the future Web, as it will be reborn in Microsoft's image, given the possibility that Microsoft may develop new proprietary and encumbered codecs, or enforce their Intellectual Property rights on Free implementations of existing codecs, such as those used in FFMPEG?
6) ... Therefore do you concede that it is possible, and indeed likely, that the future of the Web (and in other contexts - office documents and software development) might end up becoming utterly dependent of Microsoft's Intellectual Property, and thus effectively controlled (in essence "owned") by Microsoft, just as they have been striving to do for so long, and have currently succeeded in other areas, such as the OEM channel; games development; hardware support; and elsewhere?
7) ... And finally, do you think it is prudent, or even morally right, for Free Software developers to essentially help Microsoft in their endeavours to dominate the Web; office formats; and software development, particularly as Microsoft has continuously expressed so much contempt and hatred for the principles of Free Software and Open Standards over the years?
>>>>>>> * Tim Smith peremptorily fired off this memo:
>>>>>>>> In article <2918649.CU9cZF3...@schestowitz.com>, >>>>>>>> Roy Schestowitz <newsgro...@schestowitz.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> > As for the features in Moonlight and Silverlight, they should >>>>>>>>> > be pretty much comparable, as part of our collaboration >>>>>>>>> > agreement includes access to the test suites to ensure that we >>>>>>>>> > are compatible. The same test suites that they use to ensure >>>>>>>>> > backwards compatibility on their own product.
>>>>>>>>> Thanks, Miguel. This confirms that Moonlight is not Silverlight >>>>>>>>> (and probably never will be). Saying that Silverlight works in >>>>>>>>> Linux is therefore not correct. Silverlight is Silverlight. In >>>>>>>>> the same vein, OOXML is Microsoft Office (and it's not superb at >>>>>>>>> all).
>>>>>>>> Wait a second. The relationship of Moonlight to Silverlight >>>>>>>> sounds pretty much the same as the relationship of Gnash to >>>>>>>> Flash, except Moonlight is actually receiving encouragement and >>>>>>>> cooperation from the Silverlight people.
>>>>>>>> Google in groups for "schestowitz" and "gnash", and there are >>>>>>>> numerous posts by you supporting Gnash and calling it a Flash >>>>>>>> player for Linux.
>>>>>>>> How can you claim that Gnash counts as Flash for Linux, but say >>>>>>>> that Moonlight does not count as Silverlight for Linux.
>>>>>>> Tim, looking to score a pedant point.
>>>>>>> And completely missing the point.
>>>>>> Are you sure you are a programmer? Your girly giggles over your new >>>>>> slrn filters and inability to understand the basics of any >>>>>> technical issue make we wonder.
>>>>> I think he has changed careers from programmer to paid shill. Much >>>>> like Schestowitz is no longer a full time student, only officially >>>>> so he can sponge off grants etc and is now a full time paid SPAMMER.
>>>> Why do you have such an obsession with Roy?
>>> Why is this group so obsessed with Microsoft/Windows hate mongering?
>> ... because of Microsoft's illegal and/or underhanded business >> practices?
> The same could be said of Roy Schestowitz. You just refuse to admit it.
What illegal activity is Roy engaged in, and how does it adversely effect the Linux community?
>>> I don't like fakes, frauds and phonies. If I didn't believe 100 >>> percent that he is being compensated for his hate mongering I wouldn't >>> care.
>> And what makes you think anyone would compensate him for what you >> accuse him of?
> Are you kidding? > Do you realize how much money is ultimately at stake?
And what makes you think anyone would compensate him for what you accuse him of?
> You Linux loons like to believe the Linux vs * war is about sitting > around a campfire and singing Kum ba ya. > For most of you, at least in COLA, that's the way you see it.
> For others, Novell, Microsoft, Xandros, Linspire, IBM, Nvidia, > Negroponte, Shuttleworth etc this is big business and a lot of money is > at stake.
Yes, there is money at stake. A lot.
>>> Somebody has to expose this shill since the rest of you are too starry >>> eyed.
>> Second, starry eyed? Me? I think not, I have been using Linux for >> around 10 years... since you really did have to edit a lot of config >> files by hand. I am well aware of the relative lack of applications. I >> am also aware that I, with few exceptions, use Linux for all my >> computer needs. Yes, there are times when I need IE. There are times >> when I need windows to run an app or 2 from work. I am well aware that >> a LOT of popular games don't run under Linux at all, much less native.
>> I am also aware that most Linux based distros provide a stable secure >> OS. I can (and have) talked directly to developers about their >> software.
>> Do I wish all software was OSS and free ($0)... yes. Do I think it will >> happen any time soon, or even at all? No. Do I still but software? Yes.
>> So, where are the stars?
> They are in your eyes when you refuse to even consider that Schestowitz > might be getting compensated for his *work*.
What does using Linux have to do with anything that Roy does?
>>> At some point it is going to all be revealed and you will see that I >>> and others have been correct all the time.
>> ... and so what if you are?
> Nothing really other than the fact that you guys have been getting > conned and used by a Pied Piper.
* Miguel de Icaza peremptorily fired off this memo:
> Yes, we already have them, and have had for a few months now. We > have done some work on a private tree (the 'oil' tree). The work > will become public when Microsoft officially releases the new APIs.
> Miguel.
What will be the terms for commercial usage of Mono?
-- It's not manufacturers trying to rip anybody off or anything like that. There's nobody getting rich writing software that I know of. -- Bill Gates, Interview with Dennis Bathory-Kitsz in 80 Microcomputing (1980)
On Sun, 02 Mar 2008 11:45:05 -0700, Snit wrote: > "Rick" <n...@nomail.com> stated in post > 13slqq68ln2t...@news.supernews.com on 3/2/08 11:00 AM:
>> I have been using Linux for around 10 years...
> Wait, I thought you told me you went from OS X to Linux. Maybe it was > Classic Mac to Linux? Can you clarify?
First, why should I? What's it to you?
And, as I have told you before, I first used LinuxPPC on my Mac, along with OS X, and then moved to an Intel clone.
>> since you really did have to edit a lot of config files by hand. I am >> well aware of the relative lack of applications. I am also aware that >> I, with few exceptions, use Linux for all my computer needs. Yes, there >> are times when I need IE. There are times when I need windows to run an >> app or 2 from work. I am well aware that a LOT of popular games don't >> run under Linux at all, much less native.
> And then there are things like iLife, Dreamweaver, Photoshop, Camtasia, > Automator, FileMaker Pro, etc...
Yes? So what? What does any of that have to do with me?
> and the overall system has a fractured > UI that increases the risk of lost data, reduces productivity, etc. So, > sure, a desktop Linux solution might meet someone's *needs* but it, > generally, will not meet them as well as other solutions.
I see you are still showing your UI ignorance.
>> I am also aware that most Linux based distros provide a stable secure >> OS. I can (and have) talked directly to developers about their >> software.
> As have I about software on other OSs. Not sure what your point was > with that.
Think about it. It night come to you. Then again, it may not.
>> Do I wish all software was OSS and free ($0)... yes. Do I think it will >> happen any time soon, or even at all? No. Do I still but software? Yes.
> What do you mean by "still but software"? Still buy?
A typo. Beeg Deel. So What?
... and yes, I still buy software.
>> So, where are the stars?
> Your inability to see the fractured nature of desktop Linux distros even > in the face of pictorial and video proof shows you are starry eyed over > Linux.
Since they performed as designed they are not fractured. I much prefer being able to run QT/KDE and gtk/Gnome apps at the same time rather than have to make an either or choice.
>>> At some point it is going to all be revealed and you will see that I >>> and others have been correct all the time.
>> ... and so what if you are?
> If I am right then Linux will get better and will become less and less > fractured of a UI... even though so many in the Linux community are > blind to the problems it creates.
On Sun, 02 Mar 2008 19:15:55 -0000, Rick wrote: >>> ... because of Microsoft's illegal and/or underhanded business >>> practices?
>> The same could be said of Roy Schestowitz. You just refuse to admit it.
> What illegal activity is Roy engaged in, and how does it adversely effect > the Linux community?
None at the moment. I was referring to your underhanded business practices comment.
However, if you want to talk about roy Schestowitz and illegal activity we can talk about his past use of illegal use of copyrighted graphics on his website.
>>>> I don't like fakes, frauds and phonies. If I didn't believe 100 >>>> percent that he is being compensated for his hate mongering I wouldn't >>>> care.
>>> And what makes you think anyone would compensate him for what you >>> accuse him of?
>> Are you kidding? >> Do you realize how much money is ultimately at stake?
> And what makes you think anyone would compensate him for what you accuse > him of?
Duh????
Think about it....
Why do lobbyists exist?
>> You Linux loons like to believe the Linux vs * war is about sitting >> around a campfire and singing Kum ba ya. >> For most of you, at least in COLA, that's the way you see it.
>> For others, Novell, Microsoft, Xandros, Linspire, IBM, Nvidia, >> Negroponte, Shuttleworth etc this is big business and a lot of money is >> at stake.
> Yes, there is money at stake. A lot.
And now you have your answer.
>>>> Somebody has to expose this shill since the rest of you are too starry >>>> eyed.
>>> First, why?
> No answer?
To counter tha bullshit he posts here and to let others who may wander in here and think he is a sincere do gooder doing this from the bottom of his heart know the truth.
As a side effect, to show that not everyone in the Linux community is a loony like Roy. IOW I am doing you guys a favor by exposing him because he is doing far more harm to the Linux cause than you will ever admit.
Some say he is in fact a reverse troll working for a Microsoft interest. I'm not convinced of that one, yet, but I suppose anything is possible.
>>> Second, starry eyed? Me? I think not, I have been using Linux for >>> around 10 years... since you really did have to edit a lot of config >>> files by hand. I am well aware of the relative lack of applications. I >>> am also aware that I, with few exceptions, use Linux for all my >>> computer needs. Yes, there are times when I need IE. There are times >>> when I need windows to run an app or 2 from work. I am well aware that >>> a LOT of popular games don't run under Linux at all, much less native.
>>> I am also aware that most Linux based distros provide a stable secure >>> OS. I can (and have) talked directly to developers about their >>> software.
>>> Do I wish all software was OSS and free ($0)... yes. Do I think it will >>> happen any time soon, or even at all? No. Do I still but software? Yes.
>>> So, where are the stars?
>> They are in your eyes when you refuse to even consider that Schestowitz >> might be getting compensated for his *work*.
> What does using Linux have to do with anything that Roy does?
He does harm to the Linux community. harm = bad press = less users.
>>>> At some point it is going to all be revealed and you will see that I >>>> and others have been correct all the time.
>>> ... and so what if you are?
>> Nothing really other than the fact that you guys have been getting >> conned and used by a Pied Piper.
> Roy isn't conning me about anything.
Good, then we agree.
-- Moshe Goldfarb Collector of soaps from around the globe. Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots: http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/
"Rick" <n...@nomail.com> stated in post 13slvh712hg6...@news.supernews.com on 3/2/08 12:21 PM:
> On Sun, 02 Mar 2008 11:45:05 -0700, Snit wrote:
>> "Rick" <n...@nomail.com> stated in post >> 13slqq68ln2t...@news.supernews.com on 3/2/08 11:00 AM:
>>> I have been using Linux for around 10 years...
>> Wait, I thought you told me you went from OS X to Linux. Maybe it was >> Classic Mac to Linux? Can you clarify?
> First, why should I? What's it to you?
Because I am curious and you made a big deal of it. You sure have a rude demeanor!
> And, as I have told you before, I first used LinuxPPC on my Mac, along > with OS X, and then moved to an Intel clone.
Ah, so you have not used Linux as your primary system for 10 years... but you did not say you did... thanks for the clarrification.
>>> since you really did have to edit a lot of config files by hand. I am >>> well aware of the relative lack of applications. I am also aware that >>> I, with few exceptions, use Linux for all my computer needs. Yes, there >>> are times when I need IE. There are times when I need windows to run an >>> app or 2 from work. I am well aware that a LOT of popular games don't >>> run under Linux at all, much less native.
>> And then there are things like iLife, Dreamweaver, Photoshop, Camtasia, >> Automator, FileMaker Pro, etc...
> Yes? So what? What does any of that have to do with me?
You are very self absorbed. Wow.
>> and the overall system has a fractured UI that increases the risk of lost >> data, reduces productivity, etc. So, sure, a desktop Linux solution might >> meet someone's *needs* but it, generally, will not meet them as well as other >> solutions.
> I see you are still showing your UI ignorance.
How so? By all means offer a correction to my statements.
As if you could. You won't. What you will do is show you are in over your head by posting completely irrelevant insults. Yes, you are that predictable. Really.
>>> I am also aware that most Linux based distros provide a stable secure >>> OS. I can (and have) talked directly to developers about their >>> software.
>> As have I about software on other OSs. Not sure what your point was >> with that.
> Think about it. It night come to you. Then again, it may not.
Ah, you have no real point... so you are dodging. OK.
>>> Do I wish all software was OSS and free ($0)... yes. Do I think it will >>> happen any time soon, or even at all? No. Do I still but software? Yes.
>> What do you mean by "still but software"? Still buy?
> A typo. Beeg Deel. So What?
> ... and yes, I still buy software.
Thanks for the correction. Why so rude about it?
>>> So, where are the stars?
>> Your inability to see the fractured nature of desktop Linux distros even >> in the face of pictorial and video proof shows you are starry eyed over >> Linux.
> Since they performed as designed they are not fractured.
Gee, and above you pretended to know more about Linux UI issues than I do - but then you make such basic errors as this! Wow... that is just amazing.
> I much prefer being able to run QT/KDE and gtk/Gnome apps at the same time > rather than have to make an either or choice.
Irrelevant... but OK. As you have been told, the problem is not the ability to do so but the *necessity* to do so to have a complete desktop solution.
>>>> At some point it is going to all be revealed and you will see that I >>>> and others have been correct all the time.
>>> ... and so what if you are?
>> If I am right then Linux will get better and will become less and less >> fractured of a UI... even though so many in the Linux community are >> blind to the problems it creates.
> You're and idiot, and Linux continues to improve.
You lash out a lot. Wow... you do not like it when your ignorance is pointed out.
-- Do you ever wake up in a cold sweat wondering what the world would be like if the Lamarckian view of evolutionary had ended up being accepted over Darwin's?
On Sun, 02 Mar 2008 14:38:24 -0500, Moshe Goldfarb wrote: > On Sun, 02 Mar 2008 19:15:55 -0000, Rick wrote:
>>>> ... because of Microsoft's illegal and/or underhanded business >>>> practices?
>>> The same could be said of Roy Schestowitz. You just refuse to admit >>> it.
>> What illegal activity is Roy engaged in, and how does it adversely >> effect the Linux community?
> None at the moment. > I was referring to your underhanded business practices comment.
> However, if you want to talk about roy Schestowitz and illegal activity > we can talk about his past use of illegal use of copyrighted graphics on > his website.
Even if true, how did that adversely effect the Linux community?
>>>>> I don't like fakes, frauds and phonies. If I didn't believe 100 >>>>> percent that he is being compensated for his hate mongering I >>>>> wouldn't care.
>>>> And what makes you think anyone would compensate him for what you >>>> accuse him of?
>>> Are you kidding? >>> Do you realize how much money is ultimately at stake?
>> And what makes you think anyone would compensate him for what you >> accuse him of?
>>> You Linux loons like to believe the Linux vs * war is about sitting >>> around a campfire and singing Kum ba ya. For most of you, at least in >>> COLA, that's the way you see it.
>>> For others, Novell, Microsoft, Xandros, Linspire, IBM, Nvidia, >>> Negroponte, Shuttleworth etc this is big business and a lot of money >>> is at stake.
>> Yes, there is money at stake. A lot.
> And now you have your answer.
>>>>> Somebody has to expose this shill since the rest of you are too >>>>> starry eyed.
>>>> First, why?
>> No answer?
> To counter tha bullshit he posts here and to let others who may wander > in here and think he is a sincere do gooder doing this from the bottom > of his heart know the truth.
> As a side effect, to show that not everyone in the Linux community is a > loony like Roy. IOW I am doing you guys a favor by exposing him because > he is doing far more harm to the Linux cause than you will ever admit.
You're not doing me any favor. And, IMO, there are a fairn number of others that would agree with me.
> Some say he is in fact a reverse troll working for a Microsoft interest. > I'm not convinced of that one, yet, but I suppose anything is possible.
>>>> Second, starry eyed? Me? I think not, I have been using Linux for >>>> around 10 years... since you really did have to edit a lot of config >>>> files by hand. I am well aware of the relative lack of applications. >>>> I am also aware that I, with few exceptions, use Linux for all my >>>> computer needs. Yes, there are times when I need IE. There are times >>>> when I need windows to run an app or 2 from work. I am well aware >>>> that a LOT of popular games don't run under Linux at all, much less >>>> native.
>>>> I am also aware that most Linux based distros provide a stable secure >>>> OS. I can (and have) talked directly to developers about their >>>> software.
>>>> Do I wish all software was OSS and free ($0)... yes. Do I think it >>>> will happen any time soon, or even at all? No. Do I still but >>>> software? Yes.
>>>> So, where are the stars?
>>> They are in your eyes when you refuse to even consider that >>> Schestowitz might be getting compensated for his *work*.
>> What does using Linux have to do with anything that Roy does?
> He does harm to the Linux community. > harm = bad press = less users.
Maybe I should go ask people on the street if they have ever heard of him.
>>>>> At some point it is going to all be revealed and you will see that I >>>>> and others have been correct all the time.
>>>> ... and so what if you are?
>>> Nothing really other than the fact that you guys have been getting >>> conned and used by a Pied Piper.
On Sun, 02 Mar 2008 12:42:52 -0700, Snit wrote: > "Rick" <n...@nomail.com> stated in post > 13slvh712hg6...@news.supernews.com on 3/2/08 12:21 PM:
>> On Sun, 02 Mar 2008 11:45:05 -0700, Snit wrote:
>>> "Rick" <n...@nomail.com> stated in post >>> 13slqq68ln2t...@news.supernews.com on 3/2/08 11:00 AM:
>>>> I have been using Linux for around 10 years...
>>> Wait, I thought you told me you went from OS X to Linux. Maybe it was >>> Classic Mac to Linux? Can you clarify?
>> First, why should I? What's it to you?
> Because I am curious and you made a big deal of it. You sure have a > rude demeanor!
I mentioned it to someone that isn't you. And you bring out the rudeness in people.
>> And, as I have told you before, I first used LinuxPPC on my Mac, along >> with OS X, and then moved to an Intel clone.
> Ah, so you have not used Linux as your primary system for 10 years... > but you did not say you did... thanks for the clarrification.
I have repeatedly pointed you to my background in personal computers.
>>>> since you really did have to edit a lot of config files by hand. I am >>>> well aware of the relative lack of applications. I am also aware that >>>> I, with few exceptions, use Linux for all my computer needs. Yes, >>>> there are times when I need IE. There are times when I need windows >>>> to run an app or 2 from work. I am well aware that a LOT of popular >>>> games don't run under Linux at all, much less native.
>>> And then there are things like iLife, Dreamweaver, Photoshop, >>> Camtasia, Automator, FileMaker Pro, etc...
>> Yes? So what? What does any of that have to do with me?
> You are very self absorbed. Wow.
No answer to the question, I see.
>>> and the overall system has a fractured UI that increases the risk of >>> lost data, reduces productivity, etc. So, sure, a desktop Linux >>> solution might meet someone's *needs* but it, generally, will not meet >>> them as well as other solutions.
>> I see you are still showing your UI ignorance.
> How so? By all means offer a correction to my statements.
> As if you could. You won't. What you will do is show you are in over > your head by posting completely irrelevant insults. Yes, you are that > predictable. Really.
I have. Several time. You refuse to understand them.
>>>> I am also aware that most Linux based distros provide a stable secure >>>> OS. I can (and have) talked directly to developers about their >>>> software.
>>> As have I about software on other OSs. Not sure what your point was >>> with that.
>> Think about it. It night come to you. Then again, it may not.
> Ah, you have no real point... so you are dodging. OK.
Ah, you lack comprehension. OK.
>>>> Do I wish all software was OSS and free ($0)... yes. Do I think it >>>> will happen any time soon, or even at all? No. Do I still but >>>> software? Yes.
>>> What do you mean by "still but software"? Still buy?
>> A typo. Beeg Deel. So What?
>> ... and yes, I still buy software.
> Thanks for the correction. Why so rude about it?
You bring rudeness out in people, and the above comment wasn't particularly rude.
>>>> So, where are the stars?
>>> Your inability to see the fractured nature of desktop Linux distros >>> even in the face of pictorial and video proof shows you are starry >>> eyed over Linux.
>> Since they performed as designed they are not fractured.
> Gee, and above you pretended to know more about Linux UI issues than I > do - but then you make such basic errors as this! Wow... that is just > amazing.
Since they performed as designed they are not fractured.
>> I much prefer being able to run QT/KDE and gtk/Gnome apps at the same >> time rather than have to make an either or choice.
> Irrelevant... but OK.
It is extremely relevant.
> As you have been told, the problem is not the > ability to do so but the *necessity* to do so to have a complete desktop > solution.
I have a complete desktop solution.
>>>>> At some point it is going to all be revealed and you will see that I >>>>> and others have been correct all the time.
>>>> ... and so what if you are?
>>> If I am right then Linux will get better and will become less and less >>> fractured of a UI... even though so many in the Linux community are >>> blind to the problems it creates.
>> You're an idiot, and Linux continues to improve.
> You lash out a lot. Wow... you do not like it when your ignorance is > pointed out.
In article <ogzyj.113501$K27.77...@bignews6.bellsouth.net>,
Linonut <lino...@bollsouth.nut> wrote: > > Wait a second. The relationship of Moonlight to Silverlight sounds > > pretty much the same as the relationship of Gnash to Flash, except > > Moonlight is actually receiving encouragement and cooperation from the > > Silverlight people.
> > Google in groups for "schestowitz" and "gnash", and there are numerous > > posts by you supporting Gnash and calling it a Flash player for Linux.
> > How can you claim that Gnash counts as Flash for Linux, but say that > > Moonlight does not count as Silverlight for Linux.
In article <25098206.WZgH0OA...@schestowitz.com>, Roy Schestowitz <newsgro...@schestowitz.com> wrote:
> >>>>> How can you claim that Gnash counts as Flash for Linux, but say that > >>>>> Moonlight does not count as Silverlight for Linux.
> I never justified the use of Flash. What are you on about anyway?
Message-ID: <2262668.RfM0YGKCbg@schestowitz.com> Subject: [News] A Look at Gnash (Open Source Flash), Which Adopted GPLv3
Message-ID: <2462593.3bsg8UW4bz@schestowitz.com> Subject: [News] Report on the Open Source Flash Player (Gnash Interview) "Interview with Rob Savoye of Gnash, the GPL Flash project"
Message-ID: <3176572.W0A0PZ2NII@schestowitz.com> Subject: [News] Open Source Flash (GNU Gnash) - Review and Advantages
Message-ID: <2929052.pyFPL3NV01@schestowitz.com> Subject: [News] New Ubuntu Includes Free Open Source Flash
You've repeatedly counted Gnash as being an open source Flash.
Moonlight is like Gnash. It is an open source Silverlight.
On Sun, 2 Mar 2008 14:49:47 -0800 (PST), Miguel de Icaza wrote: >> You do realize that you are dealing with RoySchestowitz, a paranoid Linux >> loony toon.
> The guy has a mancrush on me, so am familiar with his "work" and what > he > does to bring more adsense revenue to his web sites.
> miguel
And the lemmings in comp.os.linux.advocacy still don't believe Roy Schestowitz is being paid, one way or the other, to post these 1000's of messages per month to USNET and evey other corner and crevice of the Internet.
-- Moshe Goldfarb Collector of soaps from around the globe. Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots: http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/
On Sun, 02 Mar 2008 22:11:18 -0000, Rick wrote: > On Sun, 02 Mar 2008 14:38:24 -0500, Moshe Goldfarb wrote:
>> On Sun, 02 Mar 2008 19:15:55 -0000, Rick wrote:
>>>>> ... because of Microsoft's illegal and/or underhanded business >>>>> practices?
>>>> The same could be said of Roy Schestowitz. You just refuse to admit >>>> it.
>>> What illegal activity is Roy engaged in, and how does it adversely >>> effect the Linux community?
>> None at the moment. >> I was referring to your underhanded business practices comment.
>> However, if you want to talk about roy Schestowitz and illegal activity >> we can talk about his past use of illegal use of copyrighted graphics on >> his website.
> Even if true, how did that adversely effect the Linux community?
If it were just an average poster in an advocacy group, not much effect. However, Schestowitz is not your average poster for all the reasons I have listed elsewhere.
His name is splattered all over the place and you literally cannot search on anything Linux without him or one of his hate sites coming up.
What this does by virtue of his looniness is make the real advocates look like kooks.
> Who is going to compensate him?
Lots of people who want to spread the Linux word and nuke Microsoft as well as their Linux competitors. Shuttleworth, Redhat, people from Groklaw.
He makes money off his Adsense hits which is why whenever possible he uses his own sites instead of a direct link to the source.
Wake up Kier and smell the SPAM.
Why do you think he posted on digg that he doesn't comment anymore? Why do you think he won't post a digest? Why do you think he doesn't have the time to check his articles for accuracy?
>>>> You Linux loons like to believe the Linux vs * war is about sitting >>>> around a campfire and singing Kum ba ya. For most of you, at least in >>>> COLA, that's the way you see it.
>>>> For others, Novell, Microsoft, Xandros, Linspire, IBM, Nvidia, >>>> Negroponte, Shuttleworth etc this is big business and a lot of money >>>> is at stake.
>>> Yes, there is money at stake. A lot.
>> And now you have your answer.
>>>>>> Somebody has to expose this shill since the rest of you are too >>>>>> starry eyed.
>>>>> First, why?
>>> No answer?
>> To counter tha bullshit he posts here and to let others who may wander >> in here and think he is a sincere do gooder doing this from the bottom >> of his heart know the truth.
>> As a side effect, to show that not everyone in the Linux community is a >> loony like Roy. IOW I am doing you guys a favor by exposing him because >> he is doing far more harm to the Linux cause than you will ever admit.
> You're not doing me any favor. And, IMO, there are a fairn number of > others that would agree with me.
Of course not. You are lemmings who have been sucked in. You wouldn't believe it if someone posted his pay stub on line.
>> Some say he is in fact a reverse troll working for a Microsoft interest. >> I'm not convinced of that one, yet, but I suppose anything is possible.
> What anti-Linux concern do you work for?
I'm not anti Linux. I'm anti Linux loony.
>>> Roy isn't conning me about anything.
>> Good, then we agree.
> We agree on what?
That you are a lemming and are too blind to see that you are being taken for a ride.
-- Moshe Goldfarb Collector of soaps from around the globe. Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots: http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/
On Sun, 02 Mar 2008 14:46:13 -0800, Tim Smith wrote: > In article <25098206.WZgH0OA...@schestowitz.com>, > Roy Schestowitz <newsgro...@schestowitz.com> wrote: >>>>>>> How can you claim that Gnash counts as Flash for Linux, but say that >>>>>>> Moonlight does not count as Silverlight for Linux.
>> I never justified the use of Flash. What are you on about anyway?
> Message-ID: <2262668.RfM0YGK...@schestowitz.com> > Subject: [News] A Look at Gnash (Open Source Flash), Which Adopted GPLv3
> Message-ID: <2462593.3bsg8UW...@schestowitz.com> > Subject: [News] Report on the Open Source Flash Player (Gnash Interview) > "Interview with Rob Savoye of Gnash, the GPL Flash project"
> Message-ID: <3176572.W0A0PZ2...@schestowitz.com> > Subject: [News] Open Source Flash (GNU Gnash) - Review and Advantages
> Message-ID: <2929052.pyFPL3N...@schestowitz.com> > Subject: [News] New Ubuntu Includes Free Open Source Flash
> You've repeatedly counted Gnash as being an open source Flash.
> Moonlight is like Gnash. It is an open source Silverlight.
I sense a thread slink coming along......
How can these Linux advocates not see what Schestowitz is all about?
They can't all be ignorant, or can they?
-- Moshe Goldfarb Collector of soaps from around the globe. Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots: http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/
>> "Rick" <n...@nomail.com> stated in post >> 13slvh712hg6...@news.supernews.com on 3/2/08 12:21 PM:
>>> On Sun, 02 Mar 2008 11:45:05 -0700, Snit wrote:
>>>> "Rick" <n...@nomail.com> stated in post >>>> 13slqq68ln2t...@news.supernews.com on 3/2/08 11:00 AM:
>>>>> I have been using Linux for around 10 years...
>>>> Wait, I thought you told me you went from OS X to Linux. Maybe it was >>>> Classic Mac to Linux? Can you clarify?
>>> First, why should I? What's it to you?
>> Because I am curious and you made a big deal of it. You sure have a >> rude demeanor!
> I mentioned it to someone that isn't you. And you bring out the rudeness > in people.
Actually you have told me directly... and your rude behavior is yours - do not blame me for your actions.
...
>>>> and the overall system has a fractured UI that increases the risk of >>>> lost data, reduces productivity, etc. So, sure, a desktop Linux >>>> solution might meet someone's *needs* but it, generally, will not meet >>>> them as well as other solutions.
>>> I see you are still showing your UI ignorance.
>> How so? By all means offer a correction to my statements.
>> As if you could. You won't. What you will do is show you are in over >> your head by posting completely irrelevant insults. Yes, you are that >> predictable. Really.
> I have. Several time. You refuse to understand them.
Incorrect... but the opposite is true. Even as I show you images and movies that *prove* the fractured nature of the PCLOS UI, for example, you deny it. As I and others have pointed out you not only are ignorant of UI concepts you are so ignorant of them that you do not even realize your ignorance!
...
>>>> What do you mean by "still but software"? Still buy?
>>> A typo. Beeg Deel. So What?
>>> ... and yes, I still buy software.
>> Thanks for the correction. Why so rude about it?
> You bring rudeness out in people, and the above comment wasn't > particularly rude.
There you go blaming me for your behavior again. And denying your behavior. That is just weird.
...
>>>> Your inability to see the fractured nature of desktop Linux distros >>>> even in the face of pictorial and video proof shows you are starry >>>> eyed over Linux.
>>> Since they performed as designed they are not fractured.
>> Gee, and above you pretended to know more about Linux UI issues than I >> do - but then you make such basic errors as this! Wow... that is just >> amazing.
> Since they performed as designed they are not fractured.
Your claim proves my point about your ignorance. Thank you.
>>> I much prefer being able to run QT/KDE and gtk/Gnome apps at the same >>> time rather than have to make an either or choice.
>> Irrelevant... but OK.
> It is extremely relevant.
Nope. Not even a little.
>> As you have been told, the problem is not the ability to do so but the >> *necessity* to do so to have a complete desktop solution.
>>>>>> At some point it is going to all be revealed and you will see that I >>>>>> and others have been correct all the time.
>>>>> ... and so what if you are?
>>>> If I am right then Linux will get better and will become less and less >>>> fractured of a UI... even though so many in the Linux community are >>>> blind to the problems it creates.
>>> You're an idiot, and Linux continues to improve.
>> You lash out a lot. Wow... you do not like it when your ignorance is >> pointed out.
> You're an idiot, and Linux continues to improve.
See how you lash out... amazing.
-- Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. --Aldous Huxley
On Sun, 02 Mar 2008 18:12:20 -0500, Moshe Goldfarb wrote: > On Sun, 02 Mar 2008 22:11:18 -0000, Rick wrote:
>> On Sun, 02 Mar 2008 14:38:24 -0500, Moshe Goldfarb wrote:
>>> On Sun, 02 Mar 2008 19:15:55 -0000, Rick wrote:
>>>>>> ... because of Microsoft's illegal and/or underhanded business >>>>>> practices?
>>>>> The same could be said of Roy Schestowitz. You just refuse to admit >>>>> it.
>>>> What illegal activity is Roy engaged in, and how does it adversely >>>> effect the Linux community?
>>> None at the moment. >>> I was referring to your underhanded business practices comment.
>>> However, if you want to talk about roy Schestowitz and illegal >>> activity we can talk about his past use of illegal use of copyrighted >>> graphics on his website.
>> Even if true, how did that adversely effect the Linux community?
> If it were just an average poster in an advocacy group, not much effect. > However, Schestowitz is not your average poster for all the reasons I > have listed elsewhere.
> His name is splattered all over the place and you literally cannot > search on anything Linux without him or one of his hate sites coming up.
> What this does by virtue of his looniness is make the real advocates > look like kooks.
I've never seen his name in any of my searches.
>> Who is going to compensate him?
> Lots of people who want to spread the Linux word and nuke Microsoft as > well as their Linux competitors. > Shuttleworth, Redhat, people from Groklaw.
> He makes money off his Adsense hits which is why whenever possible he > uses his own sites instead of a direct link to the source.
> Wake up Kier and smell the SPAM.
Kier?
> Why do you think he posted on digg that he doesn't comment anymore? Why > do you think he won't post a digest? Why do you think he doesn't have > the time to check his articles for accuracy?
>>>>> You Linux loons like to believe the Linux vs * war is about sitting >>>>> around a campfire and singing Kum ba ya. For most of you, at least >>>>> in COLA, that's the way you see it.
>>>>> For others, Novell, Microsoft, Xandros, Linspire, IBM, Nvidia, >>>>> Negroponte, Shuttleworth etc this is big business and a lot of money >>>>> is at stake.
>>>> Yes, there is money at stake. A lot.
>>> And now you have your answer.
>>>>>>> Somebody has to expose this shill since the rest of you are too >>>>>>> starry eyed.
>>>>>> First, why?
>>>> No answer?
>>> To counter tha bullshit he posts here and to let others who may wander >>> in here and think he is a sincere do gooder doing this from the bottom >>> of his heart know the truth.
>>> As a side effect, to show that not everyone in the Linux community is >>> a loony like Roy. IOW I am doing you guys a favor by exposing him >>> because he is doing far more harm to the Linux cause than you will >>> ever admit.
>> You're not doing me any favor. And, IMO, there are a fairn number of >> others that would agree with me.
> Of course not. > You are lemmings who have been sucked in. You wouldn't believe it if > someone posted his pay stub on line.
If I don't read his posts, how can I have been sucked in?
>>> Some say he is in fact a reverse troll working for a Microsoft >>> interest. I'm not convinced of that one, yet, but I suppose anything >>> is possible.
>> What anti-Linux concern do you work for?
> I'm not anti Linux. > I'm anti Linux loony.
Yeah. Right.
>>>> Roy isn't conning me about anything.
>>> Good, then we agree.
>> We agree on what?
> That you are a lemming and are too blind to see that you are being taken > for a ride.
No, we don't agree. And, AGAIN, if I'm not reading Roy's posts, how can he be taking me for a ride? -- Rick
On Sun, 02 Mar 2008 23:25:37 -0000, Rick wrote: > No, we don't agree. And, AGAIN, if I'm not reading Roy's posts, how can > he be taking me for a ride?
You're wearing out my keyboard Rick. Sorry about confusing you with Kier.
Look, we disagree, let's leave it at that. Fair enough?
-- Moshe Goldfarb Collector of soaps from around the globe. Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots: http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/
____/ Miguel de Icaza on Sunday 02 March 2008 22:49 : \____
>> You do realize that you are dealing with RoySchestowitz, a paranoid Linux >> loony toon.
> The guy has a mancrush on me, so am familiar with his "work" and what > he > does to bring more adsense revenue to his web sites.
> miguel
First of all, you're replying to a Microsoft troll who spreads libel, so I'm hardly surprised you cling onto that. Second of all, I've no touch with AdSense (it's Shane) and the last time I checked it was barely enough to even pay the hosting bill, so don't try to make it seem otherwise.
-- ~~ Best of wishes
Roy S. Schestowitz | Useless fact: Florida is bigger than England http://Schestowitz.com | GNU is Not UNIX | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E http://iuron.com - proposing a non-profit search engine
Tim Smith <reply_in_gr...@mouse-potato.com> writes: > In article <ogzyj.113501$K27.77...@bignews6.bellsouth.net>, > Linonut <lino...@bollsouth.nut> wrote: >> > Wait a second. The relationship of Moonlight to Silverlight sounds >> > pretty much the same as the relationship of Gnash to Flash, except >> > Moonlight is actually receiving encouragement and cooperation from the >> > Silverlight people.
>> > Google in groups for "schestowitz" and "gnash", and there are numerous >> > posts by you supporting Gnash and calling it a Flash player for Linux.
>> > How can you claim that Gnash counts as Flash for Linux, but say that >> > Moonlight does not count as Silverlight for Linux.
>> Tim, looking to score a pedant point.
>> And completely missing the point.
> What point would that be?
*deafening silence as Liarnut slinks away after, again, shilling with NO clue what he was responding to*
> * Miguel de Icaza peremptorily fired off this memo:
>> Yes, we already have them, and have had for a few months now. We >> have done some work on a private tree (the 'oil' tree). The work >> will become public when Microsoft officially releases the new APIs.
>> Miguel.
> What will be the terms for commercial usage of Mono?
(Hit the Play button to hear the sound of *crickets*).
-- In terms of doing things I take a fairly scientific approach to why things happen and how they happen. I don't know if there's a god or not, but I think religious principles are quite valid. -- Bill Gates, PBS interview with David Frost (November 1995)
> In article <ogzyj.113501$K27.77...@bignews6.bellsouth.net>, > Linonut <lino...@bollsouth.nut> wrote: >> > Wait a second. The relationship of Moonlight to Silverlight sounds >> > pretty much the same as the relationship of Gnash to Flash, except >> > Moonlight is actually receiving encouragement and cooperation from the >> > Silverlight people.
>> > Google in groups for "schestowitz" and "gnash", and there are numerous >> > posts by you supporting Gnash and calling it a Flash player for Linux.
>> > How can you claim that Gnash counts as Flash for Linux, but say that >> > Moonlight does not count as Silverlight for Linux.
>> Tim, looking to score a pedant point.
>> And completely missing the point.
> What point would that be?
I am confounded by your density, and not disposed to repeat myself.
Linonut <lino...@bollsouth.nut> writes: > * Tim Smith peremptorily fired off this memo:
>> In article <ogzyj.113501$K27.77...@bignews6.bellsouth.net>, >> Linonut <lino...@bollsouth.nut> wrote: >>> > Wait a second. The relationship of Moonlight to Silverlight sounds >>> > pretty much the same as the relationship of Gnash to Flash, except >>> > Moonlight is actually receiving encouragement and cooperation from the >>> > Silverlight people.
>>> > Google in groups for "schestowitz" and "gnash", and there are numerous >>> > posts by you supporting Gnash and calling it a Flash player for Linux.
>>> > How can you claim that Gnash counts as Flash for Linux, but say that >>> > Moonlight does not count as Silverlight for Linux.
>>> Tim, looking to score a pedant point.
>>> And completely missing the point.
>> What point would that be?
> I am confounded by your density, and not disposed to repeat myself.
Liarnut, you need to get some help. You're getting denser by the day. Are you turning into a black hole or something?
On Mon, 03 Mar 2008 04:56:19 +0000, Roy Schestowitz wrote: > ____/ Miguel de Icaza on Sunday 02 March 2008 22:49 : \____
>>> You do realize that you are dealing with RoySchestowitz, a paranoid Linux >>> loony toon.
>> The guy has a mancrush on me, so am familiar with his "work" and what >> he >> does to bring more adsense revenue to his web sites.
>> miguel
> First of all, you're replying to a Microsoft troll who spreads libel, so I'm > hardly surprised you cling onto that. Second of all, I've no touch with > AdSense (it's Shane) and the last time I checked it was barely enough to even > pay the hosting bill, so don't try to make it seem otherwise.
Yawn. You make that claim all the time Schestowitz, and nobody believes you so why don't you give it a rest?
-- Moshe Goldfarb Collector of soaps from around the globe. Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots: http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/
|
