*yawn* Let me know when you grow some balls. In the meantime, keep enjoying your negative moderation. Time to whip up another sockpuppet soon, you think?
I disagree. There are certainly people here with that type of attitude. Whether they actually believe it or not, who knows. But the various degrees of "this would never happen if you were using free software" or "LOLOL download the patch, it's at www.ubuntu.com" are certainly prevalent.
BTW, that "how do you know Microsoft didn't do X or Y" is rarely productive - unless you have a habit of manually auditing every line of code that goes into your favorite Linux distro.
I think it is pretty simple human nature to speak more openly or play villain when there's a poor chance of getting caught.
More precisely, I think it's the lack of repercussions for uncivil behavior. There are no repercussions for me if I tell you to go f*ck yourself or I call your mom a fat cow. In the real world, that would get you dropped faster than you can say "LOL OMG"
A lot of people who would otherwise be unable to handle themselves in a real-world confrontational situation (and in my experience this is the majority of humanity) probably feel empowered by the fact they can say anything to anyone from the comfort of their basements. It must be a psychological rush for them.
You're big on this "M$ is stalking me on teh interwebs" deal, do you have something more recent? This millenium perhaps?
After all, you're implying a pattern of behavior here, obviously. I'm not saying that your claim Microsoft "pays people to be rude" for whatever reason is invalid, but surely in a 10-year span since 1998 someone, somewhere has obtained proof of that?
I think it's interesting that so many of these are pre-2001, which is a long time. You'd think maybe they tend to stop doing things after they are caught. Like JBoss, for example. Wouldn't you agree?
Again, I have no proof that they are not doing it, but the onus is on you, realistically, to provide proof that they are.
Tell you what, I'll volunteer to refute twitter's cute little "failure log" when you find me a post in response to him (or his sockpuppets) that actually DEFEND Microsoft, as opposed to pointing out that he's a pathological liar, a dishonest advocate and a cheap troll. I'll be looking forward to that.
If it makes you feel better, you can pretend Microsoft pays me $4.50 a day to argue with morons on teh internets.
Yes, I've been using it since you released your first alpha. And I wouldn't change the defaults since my preferred search engine happens to be Google.
However, one of the most common complaints about Microsoft is that they ship IE with a default search engine and users are apathetic or not informed enough to change it, thus making Microsoft more money and more evil, Bill Gates is the antichrist, etc.
I fail to see why the same accusation can't be leveled at you, now that your product has moved from being a niche geek toy to a mainstream browser used by Joe Windows?
Seriously, how difficult would it be for you to show me a list of search providers at install time and let me choose the one I prefer?
The "Linux Desktop" is far more unified than non free equivalents from M$ and others
No, twitter. I think you don't really understand what "unified" means. It doesn't mean being able to copy and paste text across applications, Microsoft figured that out 15 years ago. It means KParts working with GNOME applications. It means KIOslaves working with GNOME applications. It means KDE apps being bonobo-aware. It means that hilarious "embedding" technology OpenOffice uses is used by other desktop applications as well. It means having a single unified shell API. It means not having to load another massive set of runtimes for the "other" desktop when I want to use Kate on GNOME or Gedit on KDE. It means having a single binary layer API like COM that acts as glue for everyone.
That's what "unified" would mean. There is no such thing on Linux, at all. There is unity on Windows because it's controlled by a single entity, but at least there is cohesion and consistency. The only way you approach that in Linux is if you write apps that run on plain X or ncurses.
Perhaps Mozilla could give you the option to set the default search engine when you install it. Then Google would pay for Google installations, Yahoo for theirs, Microsoft for theirs, etc. Users win, the search engine company wins, Mozilla wins. More importantly, Mozilla becomes more independent.
And then maybe Microsoft could rent a clue about that. I for one would love to see Google pay Microsoft for the benefit of being the default search engine in Internet Explorer. People who pick Google as a SE mean no revenue to Microsoft in that sense, anyway. And that would also mean more choice for IE users.
I used to say the same thing when I was a teenager and generally feeling rebellious. Unfortunately my dad had all the money at the time, so for anything that had to do with money he ended up calling the shots.
I'm not saying this is bad, and frankly I don't buy the "OMG Google will subvert Firefox" or whatever the conspiracy theory du jour is, but when 99% (or close to that) of your income comes from a single place, "I call the shots" comes across a little weak. He might be right in his claim that Mozilla is independent with or without Google's $56 million, but without the $56M Mozilla is a very different company, probably one that cannot support 120 million users or pay developers or CEOs.
When it comes to money, it's always worse to have it and then lose it than to never have it to begin with.
The link to xemacs.org in your profile pretty much covers where you're coming from, in case I needed it to figure out that neither you nor your boss have taken 30 minutes to customize Word to work the way you want it to. Let me guess, it's A-OK to spend 8 hours doing the same to Emacs or Vim, but Word doesn't ship with defaults you enjoy, so therefore it's "hell" and you hate it.
I use Word in "minimalistic" mode, with no toolbars at all. I have a crapload of custom keyboard mappings to make it easier to do things. It works OK, for me.
OTOH, I've seen co-workers breeze through cluttered Office interfaces (let's turn on all the toolbars, yay!) with no problem whatsoever, mostly because they know where everything is. I doubt they "hate it" at all. I'd say they're quite productive, even. After all, you can customize to your heart's content if you don't like the defaults. Oh wait, I already mentioned that.
I think people like you are completely disconnected from the way people use software. I'm a developer and I catch myself doing that sometimes as well. But if you dislike a general-purpose consumer software application like Word on principle, don't try to look for exciting technical or ergonomic arguments to come up with reasons to hate it. Just say you hate it and carry on.
I wasn't the one that questioned dear twitter's blabber to begin with, but I guess I'll humour you.
I don't see why anyone would want to "address the issues" when the issues include infantile tripe like "paying $400 for a text editor" (or your clever "monopoly rent" deal), not to mention the ever-hilarious "M$" thing. You are mistaken if you think I am somehow taking issue with his regurgitation of obvious things like the WalMart demographic and whatnot.
I can't really explain it any better than this post. Which, if you are wondering, is a response to a flamebait post in his "twitter" account. There you go: sockpuppets. One less reason to pay any attention whatsoever to him.
Actually, anyone who posts things like these has pretty much forfeited their right to have their "issues" addressed.
Please don't pay attention to this guy. He's a well-known troll who's main account is in deserved karma hell right now, so he uses a sockpuppet to continue to game the system.
Most people who advocate free software are not like this, in my experience.
I'll call anyone a MicroTard if they think M$ security issues are the user's fault.
You mean "he does not follow the OneTrueReligion, therefore I must insult him"
"FreeTard" would be more appropriate
I didn't ask what you want to be called, I asked if you are OK with people insulting you in kind because they don't like how you think or what little idol you pray to.
Since you're obviously using the term "microtard" to refer to the person you replied to because he holds an opinion different to yours on this issue, I assume that you won't object people referring to you with terms like "flosstard" or "lintard" whenever they in turn disagree with you?
They copied a bunch of stuff Windows has had for years (policy) or just got (advanced audio).
I mean that's good and all, that increases pressure on Microsoft to innovate and whatnot. Also for Apple. But it's just funny that when Microsoft copies something they are "stealing" and "incapable of innovation", but when someone else does it (Linux, OS X) it's praise the lord and pas the popcorn.
I'm torn between telling you to FOAD and carrying on this exciting conversation in the hope of discovering what other types of humor I'm not supposed to use when you're around.
So why don't you just foe me and we'll call it a day.
You are already banned, since like all good trolls and crapflooders your account is at -50 karma or something, so you can only post what, twice a day? And troll as AC, I guess. You do know that negative moderation of AC posts is tied to your IP address, correct? I'm guessing soon you'll have to resort to using open proxies and whatnot.
You could of course just use your sockpuppet account, but I'm guessing that one is also on the slippery karma slope by now, as expected.
You're going to have to explain to me which part of that is the Simpsons? I'm a big Family Guy fan but I must confess my exposure to the former is rather limited. Is it the children bit? Because the first part is a classic line from Aliens and the second I like totally made up.
When we're done, I'll buy you a sense of humor. Having to dissect and explain my own attempts at it are really depressing, so I want to avoid it in the future.
Slashdot Mirror
*yawn* Let me know when you grow some balls. In the meantime, keep enjoying your negative moderation. Time to whip up another sockpuppet soon, you think?
I disagree. There are certainly people here with that type of attitude. Whether they actually believe it or not, who knows. But the various degrees of "this would never happen if you were using free software" or "LOLOL download the patch, it's at www.ubuntu.com" are certainly prevalent.
BTW, that "how do you know Microsoft didn't do X or Y" is rarely productive - unless you have a habit of manually auditing every line of code that goes into your favorite Linux distro.
More precisely, I think it's the lack of repercussions for uncivil behavior. There are no repercussions for me if I tell you to go f*ck yourself or I call your mom a fat cow. In the real world, that would get you dropped faster than you can say "LOL OMG"
A lot of people who would otherwise be unable to handle themselves in a real-world confrontational situation (and in my experience this is the majority of humanity) probably feel empowered by the fact they can say anything to anyone from the comfort of their basements. It must be a psychological rush for them.
After all, you're implying a pattern of behavior here, obviously. I'm not saying that your claim Microsoft "pays people to be rude" for whatever reason is invalid, but surely in a 10-year span since 1998 someone, somewhere has obtained proof of that?
I think it's interesting that so many of these are pre-2001, which is a long time. You'd think maybe they tend to stop doing things after they are caught. Like JBoss, for example. Wouldn't you agree?
Again, I have no proof that they are not doing it, but the onus is on you, realistically, to provide proof that they are.
If it makes you feel better, you can pretend Microsoft pays me $4.50 a day to argue with morons on teh internets.
However, one of the most common complaints about Microsoft is that they ship IE with a default search engine and users are apathetic or not informed enough to change it, thus making Microsoft more money and more evil, Bill Gates is the antichrist, etc.
I fail to see why the same accusation can't be leveled at you, now that your product has moved from being a niche geek toy to a mainstream browser used by Joe Windows?
Seriously, how difficult would it be for you to show me a list of search providers at install time and let me choose the one I prefer?
No, twitter. I think you don't really understand what "unified" means. It doesn't mean being able to copy and paste text across applications, Microsoft figured that out 15 years ago. It means KParts working with GNOME applications. It means KIOslaves working with GNOME applications. It means KDE apps being bonobo-aware. It means that hilarious "embedding" technology OpenOffice uses is used by other desktop applications as well. It means having a single unified shell API. It means not having to load another massive set of runtimes for the "other" desktop when I want to use Kate on GNOME or Gedit on KDE. It means having a single binary layer API like COM that acts as glue for everyone.
That's what "unified" would mean. There is no such thing on Linux, at all. There is unity on Windows because it's controlled by a single entity, but at least there is cohesion and consistency. The only way you approach that in Linux is if you write apps that run on plain X or ncurses.
So why don't you give users the option to choose the search engine they prefer?
And then maybe Microsoft could rent a clue about that. I for one would love to see Google pay Microsoft for the benefit of being the default search engine in Internet Explorer. People who pick Google as a SE mean no revenue to Microsoft in that sense, anyway. And that would also mean more choice for IE users.
I'm not saying this is bad, and frankly I don't buy the "OMG Google will subvert Firefox" or whatever the conspiracy theory du jour is, but when 99% (or close to that) of your income comes from a single place, "I call the shots" comes across a little weak. He might be right in his claim that Mozilla is independent with or without Google's $56 million, but without the $56M Mozilla is a very different company, probably one that cannot support 120 million users or pay developers or CEOs.
When it comes to money, it's always worse to have it and then lose it than to never have it to begin with.
I'm sorry you feel I 'trolled' you, maybe I didn't show enough deference to your obvious problems with customizing an application.
When you're finished reading and you can point out where I "slag" him, we'll continue this exciting conversation.
I use Word in "minimalistic" mode, with no toolbars at all. I have a crapload of custom keyboard mappings to make it easier to do things. It works OK, for me.
OTOH, I've seen co-workers breeze through cluttered Office interfaces (let's turn on all the toolbars, yay!) with no problem whatsoever, mostly because they know where everything is. I doubt they "hate it" at all. I'd say they're quite productive, even. After all, you can customize to your heart's content if you don't like the defaults. Oh wait, I already mentioned that.
I think people like you are completely disconnected from the way people use software. I'm a developer and I catch myself doing that sometimes as well. But if you dislike a general-purpose consumer software application like Word on principle, don't try to look for exciting technical or ergonomic arguments to come up with reasons to hate it. Just say you hate it and carry on.
I don't see why anyone would want to "address the issues" when the issues include infantile tripe like "paying $400 for a text editor" (or your clever "monopoly rent" deal), not to mention the ever-hilarious "M$" thing. You are mistaken if you think I am somehow taking issue with his regurgitation of obvious things like the WalMart demographic and whatnot.
I can't really explain it any better than this post. Which, if you are wondering, is a response to a flamebait post in his "twitter" account. There you go: sockpuppets. One less reason to pay any attention whatsoever to him.
Actually, anyone who posts things like these has pretty much forfeited their right to have their "issues" addressed.
Most people who advocate free software are not like this, in my experience.
You mean "he does not follow the OneTrueReligion, therefore I must insult him"
I didn't ask what you want to be called, I asked if you are OK with people insulting you in kind because they don't like how you think or what little idol you pray to.
Since you're obviously using the term "microtard" to refer to the person you replied to because he holds an opinion different to yours on this issue, I assume that you won't object people referring to you with terms like "flosstard" or "lintard" whenever they in turn disagree with you?
In fact, given enough user apathy, they can all coexist quite happily.
Other than that, you have nothing but your psychotic hatred and infantile "M$ Windoze Microtard" insults, as usual.
Yeah, it's never a copy of anything. It's all pure innovation.
I mean that's good and all, that increases pressure on Microsoft to innovate and whatnot. Also for Apple. But it's just funny that when Microsoft copies something they are "stealing" and "incapable of innovation", but when someone else does it (Linux, OS X) it's praise the lord and pas the popcorn.
So why don't you just foe me and we'll call it a day.
You are already banned, since like all good trolls and crapflooders your account is at -50 karma or something, so you can only post what, twice a day? And troll as AC, I guess. You do know that negative moderation of AC posts is tied to your IP address, correct? I'm guessing soon you'll have to resort to using open proxies and whatnot.
You could of course just use your sockpuppet account, but I'm guessing that one is also on the slippery karma slope by now, as expected.
Sucks to be you :)
When we're done, I'll buy you a sense of humor. Having to dissect and explain my own attempts at it are really depressing, so I want to avoid it in the future.
While you're at it, ban guns, condoms, Gucci, sharp objects, blunt objects, Hello Kitty, the internet, pipes, pr0n, "Humanity is overrated" T-shirts, cottage cheese, IBM, plastic rulers, bubble gum, cloned sheep, ballpoint pens, Ray-Ban glasses, Fark, and Day-Glo. Oh, and CowboyNeal.
The children. Think of the children, for god's sake.
Looks like those "outrageous" piracy figures from the BSA and *AA folks are relatively correct then. I guess that's funny. Maybe.