Bzzzt, wrong. Linux is an operatings system kernel. No more, no less.
Can we stop doing this now? People around here know that "Linux" is a kernel. We get it. We've gotten it for the past 10 years. Here's the deal: when used in this context - and just about any other - the term "Linux" refers "a Linux distribution". You realize this, right? Of course.
They might call it "RHEL" or "Mandriva" or "GNU/Linux" if they want to drink from the FSF evangelical cup, but mostly they call it "Linux". Everyone does. It's part of the tech lingo now.
Get over it and stop trying to be clever by posting pointless semantic retorts like these.
So twitter, I'd like you to show us another example of this "harassment" you claim is directed by Microsoft at Slashdot. I mean, I don't see how Microsoft would benefit from "harassing" you specifically? Are you claiming you are someone of importance within the context of Slashdot or free software in general? So if this is some sort of campaign by the evil forces of "M$" then surely there must be other examples of "important" people being "targeted" this same way. Can you find us some? I of course can't give credence to your theory that I work for Microsoft (and I've given up asking you to prove it), but certainly providing some proof that this is a concerted effort of some kind would go a long way.
Specifically, I'd like to see another Slashdot poster that holds the same views as you, hates Microsoft as virulently as you, and has had literally years of ACs posting thousands of times in response to your flamebait, and a group of people who (like myself) think you do more damage than good and are not afraid of pointing it out whenever we can. Find us wildly different people with completely different posting histories and patterns and somehow prove that Microsoft has all these accounts set up as "sleepers" to one day just start "harassing" you exclusively.
I know all that sounds far-fetched, sure. But otherwise what you have here is your feverish imagination and insane, ridiculous arrogance.
In the past you've been asked to provide backing for your recurring FUD, and you've consistently failed to do so. Maybe this time you'll step up to the plate. I have nothing to hide, other than my intense dislike of you (and people like you) who think free software is the one true answer to all questions and that spending large amounts of time spreading bullshit FUD about companies is somehow a noble task. But if you're going to keep pointing out I'm a "troll" and then stupidly trying to tie that into some nebulous conspiracy theory that revolves around Microsoft stalking you on teh interwebs then I'd very much like to see some proof of your claims. And I'm sure every single person that cares about Slashdot as a community would as well.
If this was a Linux-based solution that fact would be in the submission, but of course it's not so there's no mention even of the technology being used. There's a Word doc here with the specs and requirements.
an issue MS lost in the EU where they were required to make that information available.
Protocols != APIs. Not to mention the fact that it was RealNetworks that pushed for the EU to force Microsoft to remove WMP from Windows.
This definitely affected WordPerfect and SmartSuite to name 2.
OK, aside from the obvious problem here with whining about how Microsoft should not be allowed to change a beta, how did these changes not affect anyone else again?
No, the problem is that like Microsoft and the internet, WordPerfect groked UI computing until it was too late. The first graphical versions of WP were a complete and utter unusable mess, which of course gave the advantage to Microsoft. WP was like Netscape, whining about how they could not compete with software that was substandard to say the least and no one wanted.
The issues were documented in the DOJ case
You mean they were used as non-sequiturs to prop up the idea that Netscape was the victim.
Well, judging by the moderation so far it seems more like a waste of effort. Maybe there's a rule that says "no, no, the first post must be modded down" and another that ordains the opposite. What a joke.
Not that it matters in any way, but it's interesting.
No, what I mean is that in the past 15 years of hearing about these "intentional incompatibilities" and "hidden APIs" I've yet to see one that actually is meaningful enough to prevent a company like WordPerfect (or Corel or Novell or Adobe or Aldus or AutoDesk or CA or IBM or Oracle) to produce a working piece of software for Windows. It was the "hidden scheduler" or something like that in the Excel 3.x days, which was ridiculous. And the "settlement APIs" that were mostly useless shell-level wrappers. And so on.
The DOJ case was based on Netscape's whining about how they were being victimized by Microsoft's bundling of IE into Windows, and about the Java VM problems, so I don't see how that fits in here?
I keep hoping someone will show me some real proof instead of just FUD "well Microsoft did X and Y and so they're evil" claims without basis.
incompatibilities into the OS that affected WordPerfect and SmartSuite
Cite? And I don't mean Novell suing Microsoft for their inability to prop up a product that fell behind Word in the early 90s - I mean one of these "incompatibilities" or mythic "hidden APIs" that actually caused WP to stop working on a given version of Windows.
It appears it's mostly based on that... but then we all know this country sucks there in regards to Europe and Asia. As soon as the FCC stops sucking up to the big telecom corps and opens up the spectrum, the game is on again.
Yes, I'm sure that's the case. Especially considering Jimbo Wales has correspondents all over the world gathering news for him, and he's about to launch a cable news network. MSNBC must concentrate on "discrediting" Wikipedia instead of competing with CNN and Fox, and they'll be OK.
So twitter, are you going to reply to this soon? You seem to enjoy replying to ACs with your clever "An AC taunts" and whatnot opening lines, maybe you could do the same for us here? It would be much appreciated, as always. I mean, since you never got back to me on the topic of the supposedly mythic Linux botnets.
You don't seem to have a good grasp on how people work
No, you're right. I've never dated, never lived with anyone, never went to college, never been in the Army, never held a job, never etc. You got me all figured out!
When you have a decent grasp on human action, you tend to take threats like this seriously.
The "grasp" is that if you're half a world away and you can't spell while you tell me how much you want to "hang" me with a rope, I could really care fuck all about you. When I see you coming at me, I'll start taking you seriously. Actually, I'll take you much more seriously if you never threatened me like a retarded child on Xanax to begin with.
I'm sure you're highly qualified in some subjects, but I don't tell my mechanic how to fix my car.
Can I interest you in a nice cup of shut the fuck up, then? Awesome.
And in your 20 years, how many of these threats were directed at you?
Enough of them.
I pity the the woman who would be married to you
And what would you do, exactly, over vague threats by unknown people? I never said I wouldn't take action, I said I would explain it to her that way to prevent her from seizing up with fear.
put yourself in a situation where you have a good chance of being victimized and see how brave you feel then.
About as brave as I'd feel when I have been victimized, I suppose. Oh, I'm sorry. Maybe you thought I've never been in that sort of situation?
Please don't do me any favours by reading between the lines here. What I said is plain enough: There is no need to interrupt your life and huddle in a room because some social misfit posted some unsavory comments about you on teh interwebs. That's exactly what they want.
I think that from a practical standpoint if you want to allow whistleblowers and critics of corporations for example to have their anonymity, you'll also going to have to live with these people. You might be able to prosecute them after the fact, but you can only be reactive - not proactive - in dealing with them.
The support monkey that answered the phone has a script. That script is designed around diagnosing problems using Windows. She didn't have Windows installed. So the support monkey said "your warranty is void" even though that's obviously not true, and under the current legal warranty act (Magnusson something) his reasons would never hold up in court, as any first year legal intern would tell you. The support monkey costs gobs of money compared to the tiny profit HP made on the computer, and is supposed to drive these people away under pain of death as soon as they deviate from the norm.
I'm sure HP will correct this soon enough, but of course that doesn't stop Slashdork and the rest of the world from rising up in hysterical indignation to blame their woes on Microsoft and the "big dumb companies" that do not have the infrastructure to walk Jane Dow through running modprobe on her $800 laptop.
You mock the blogger's fear as overreaction. Try thinking like a more vulnerable person, and then perhaps you'll respond more charitably.
I am not mocking her. And this has nothing to do with whether or not women are more likely to be victimized by men. What I'm essentially saying is that her chances of being raped in a parking lot by a stranger are probably higher than one of these people actually tracking her down and inflicting harm on her. For them, the threat is the thrill. It's an infantile power play aided by the veil of anonymity, and while I don't blame her in any way - she is the victim here after all - she did fell for it. I've been online for almost 20 years and I've seen these things often enough to know how they work and why they happen.
I understand your points, and they're valid, but I stand by mine as well. FWIW, if I were married and this was my wife that's probably what I'd tell her. It's scary and annoying and whatnot, but she doesn't need to cloister herself up in a room and shiver in fear, because that's exactly what the fucktards that did this wanted to begin with.
Re:There's a kinda Windows version
on
TextMate
·
· Score: 1
That's interesting, thanks. It's too buggy right now, but maybe it will get better.
The whole TextMate bundle thing is a great idea, but I think requiring cygwin is a bit too much. And it makes for a good dev editor, but as far as working with text the thing to measure all things against is still TextPad, IMO.
Yes, this is unacceptable. However, it does happen, and it will continue to happen as long as people can continue to be essentially anonymous. It's that anonymity that changes a probably normal person into a blathering, vile fucktard.
But I think this woman is overreacting a tad. Maybe this is the first time something like this has happened to her. The chances of one of these assholes hunting her down and doing that stuff they so eloquently described in their posts to her is probably about as high as her chances of being hit by a meteor. I'd hate to think she's somehow milking this for the PR value, but her "OMG I have to sequester myself at home with my dog and a shotgun" is a bit too much. Not that the behavior that led to this is acceptable at all, but still.
I do find it ironic though that the very community that considers online anonymity to be so sacred can turn around so quickly and demand that these people - again, vile fucktards - be "brought to justice". But then I guess we all have our double standards.
In the 1980's Stallman was one of 'the rest of us' who actively and loudly denounced Apple
Well, that went well, didn't it?
Go ahead and be one of the 'Pod People'
I'm sorry you're so angry, but I have no idea what you're talking about. I don't own a Mac, never have and probably never will. I don't own an iPod, either.
Only if Stallman patented the UI, which somehow I doubt.
Copying the "look and feel" of something shouldn't be a crime, contrary to what companies like Apple think.
And I'll slip into my flameproof suit to say this: For all its power, anyone who thinks cloning the Emacs GUI (and that includes XEmacs) should be impaled slowly with a rusted farm implement. Surely we can do better than that bizantine, bloated, confusing, slow and labrynthic interface. Again, for all its power and all that.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, yeah.
Can we stop doing this now? People around here know that "Linux" is a kernel. We get it. We've gotten it for the past 10 years. Here's the deal: when used in this context - and just about any other - the term "Linux" refers "a Linux distribution". You realize this, right? Of course.
They might call it "RHEL" or "Mandriva" or "GNU/Linux" if they want to drink from the FSF evangelical cup, but mostly they call it "Linux". Everyone does. It's part of the tech lingo now.
Get over it and stop trying to be clever by posting pointless semantic retorts like these.
Specifically, I'd like to see another Slashdot poster that holds the same views as you, hates Microsoft as virulently as you, and has had literally years of ACs posting thousands of times in response to your flamebait, and a group of people who (like myself) think you do more damage than good and are not afraid of pointing it out whenever we can. Find us wildly different people with completely different posting histories and patterns and somehow prove that Microsoft has all these accounts set up as "sleepers" to one day just start "harassing" you exclusively.
I know all that sounds far-fetched, sure. But otherwise what you have here is your feverish imagination and insane, ridiculous arrogance.
In the past you've been asked to provide backing for your recurring FUD, and you've consistently failed to do so. Maybe this time you'll step up to the plate. I have nothing to hide, other than my intense dislike of you (and people like you) who think free software is the one true answer to all questions and that spending large amounts of time spreading bullshit FUD about companies is somehow a noble task. But if you're going to keep pointing out I'm a "troll" and then stupidly trying to tie that into some nebulous conspiracy theory that revolves around Microsoft stalking you on teh interwebs then I'd very much like to see some proof of your claims. And I'm sure every single person that cares about Slashdot as a community would as well.
If this was a Linux-based solution that fact would be in the submission, but of course it's not so there's no mention even of the technology being used. There's a Word doc here with the specs and requirements.
Protocols != APIs. Not to mention the fact that it was RealNetworks that pushed for the EU to force Microsoft to remove WMP from Windows.
OK, aside from the obvious problem here with whining about how Microsoft should not be allowed to change a beta, how did these changes not affect anyone else again?
No, the problem is that like Microsoft and the internet, WordPerfect groked UI computing until it was too late. The first graphical versions of WP were a complete and utter unusable mess, which of course gave the advantage to Microsoft. WP was like Netscape, whining about how they could not compete with software that was substandard to say the least and no one wanted.
You mean they were used as non-sequiturs to prop up the idea that Netscape was the victim.
Not that it matters in any way, but it's interesting.
The DOJ case was based on Netscape's whining about how they were being victimized by Microsoft's bundling of IE into Windows, and about the Java VM problems, so I don't see how that fits in here?
I keep hoping someone will show me some real proof instead of just FUD "well Microsoft did X and Y and so they're evil" claims without basis.
I know, I hadn't realized it was the first post until I came back. I swear it wasn't on purpose =)
twitter, you forgot to complain to this heathen about Bill Gate's personal crusade against you!
Cite? And I don't mean Novell suing Microsoft for their inability to prop up a product that fell behind Word in the early 90s - I mean one of these "incompatibilities" or mythic "hidden APIs" that actually caused WP to stop working on a given version of Windows.
My first =)
It appears it's mostly based on that... but then we all know this country sucks there in regards to Europe and Asia. As soon as the FCC stops sucking up to the big telecom corps and opens up the spectrum, the game is on again.
They did? And what would those be?
Yes, I'm sure that's the case. Especially considering Jimbo Wales has correspondents all over the world gathering news for him, and he's about to launch a cable news network. MSNBC must concentrate on "discrediting" Wikipedia instead of competing with CNN and Fox, and they'll be OK.
Thanks!
No, you're right. I've never dated, never lived with anyone, never went to college, never been in the Army, never held a job, never etc. You got me all figured out!
The "grasp" is that if you're half a world away and you can't spell while you tell me how much you want to "hang" me with a rope, I could really care fuck all about you. When I see you coming at me, I'll start taking you seriously. Actually, I'll take you much more seriously if you never threatened me like a retarded child on Xanax to begin with.
Can I interest you in a nice cup of shut the fuck up, then? Awesome.
A little common sense goes a long way, eh?
I'm sorry, but it's not my fault that you don't understand how these companies work. I do, however.
Go fuck yourself.
Enough of them.
And what would you do, exactly, over vague threats by unknown people? I never said I wouldn't take action, I said I would explain it to her that way to prevent her from seizing up with fear.
About as brave as I'd feel when I have been victimized, I suppose. Oh, I'm sorry. Maybe you thought I've never been in that sort of situation?
Please don't do me any favours by reading between the lines here. What I said is plain enough: There is no need to interrupt your life and huddle in a room because some social misfit posted some unsavory comments about you on teh interwebs. That's exactly what they want.
I think that from a practical standpoint if you want to allow whistleblowers and critics of corporations for example to have their anonymity, you'll also going to have to live with these people. You might be able to prosecute them after the fact, but you can only be reactive - not proactive - in dealing with them.
I'm sure HP will correct this soon enough, but of course that doesn't stop Slashdork and the rest of the world from rising up in hysterical indignation to blame their woes on Microsoft and the "big dumb companies" that do not have the infrastructure to walk Jane Dow through running modprobe on her $800 laptop.
I am not mocking her. And this has nothing to do with whether or not women are more likely to be victimized by men. What I'm essentially saying is that her chances of being raped in a parking lot by a stranger are probably higher than one of these people actually tracking her down and inflicting harm on her. For them, the threat is the thrill. It's an infantile power play aided by the veil of anonymity, and while I don't blame her in any way - she is the victim here after all - she did fell for it. I've been online for almost 20 years and I've seen these things often enough to know how they work and why they happen.
I understand your points, and they're valid, but I stand by mine as well. FWIW, if I were married and this was my wife that's probably what I'd tell her. It's scary and annoying and whatnot, but she doesn't need to cloister herself up in a room and shiver in fear, because that's exactly what the fucktards that did this wanted to begin with.
The whole TextMate bundle thing is a great idea, but I think requiring cygwin is a bit too much. And it makes for a good dev editor, but as far as working with text the thing to measure all things against is still TextPad, IMO.
But I think this woman is overreacting a tad. Maybe this is the first time something like this has happened to her. The chances of one of these assholes hunting her down and doing that stuff they so eloquently described in their posts to her is probably about as high as her chances of being hit by a meteor. I'd hate to think she's somehow milking this for the PR value, but her "OMG I have to sequester myself at home with my dog and a shotgun" is a bit too much. Not that the behavior that led to this is acceptable at all, but still.
I do find it ironic though that the very community that considers online anonymity to be so sacred can turn around so quickly and demand that these people - again, vile fucktards - be "brought to justice". But then I guess we all have our double standards.
Well, that went well, didn't it?
I'm sorry you're so angry, but I have no idea what you're talking about. I don't own a Mac, never have and probably never will. I don't own an iPod, either.
Copying the "look and feel" of something shouldn't be a crime, contrary to what companies like Apple think.
And I'll slip into my flameproof suit to say this: For all its power, anyone who thinks cloning the Emacs GUI (and that includes XEmacs) should be impaled slowly with a rusted farm implement. Surely we can do better than that bizantine, bloated, confusing, slow and labrynthic interface. Again, for all its power and all that.