Discussion:
Why is Android not Linux?
(too old to reply)
RayLopez99
2011-11-12 11:55:56 UTC
Permalink
Same reason Apple OS X Lion/Leopard is not Linux. Same reason Unix is
not Linux.

More importantly, Android is a crippled OS designed to run on crippled
hardware.

By contrast, Windows Metro will run seamlessly on tablets as well as
PCs with nary a modification, when it comes out late next year. Stay
tuned.

RL
7
2011-11-12 12:30:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by RayLopez99
Same reason Apple OS X Lion/Leopard is not Linux.
Isn't appil software a derivative work of open source?

The very open source movement LSD snorkeling blow jobs allocated
$40 billion to fight with and has gotten you here to post
this rubbish?
Post by RayLopez99
Same reason Unix is not Linux.
Are you sure you are not snorkeling LSD?

Conflating "Unix is not Linux" with "Android is not Linux" is not
the possible.

Android is a Linux distro just like Ubuntu, Slackware, RedHat etc.
Post by RayLopez99
More importantly, Android is a crippled OS designed to run on crippled
hardware.
If people vote with their feet, the appil and micoshaft make
crap phones while Linux distro Android has overtaken appil
and micoshaft and is No.1 in smartphones now.

Linux distro Android brings in more revenue to retailers than appil crap.
Post by RayLopez99
By contrast, Windows Metro will run seamlessly on tablets as well as
PCs with nary a modification, when it comes out late next year. Stay
tuned.
RL
**********************************************************************
**
** Important note about Linux and Micoshaft / Appil funded
** Corporate Boot Licking Trolls infesting COLA newsgroup for money.
**
**********************************************************************
**
** Linux has gained a lot in commercial importance overtaking Appil
** and Microshaft in many commercial products. These companies have
** responded by committing billions of dollars dedicated to fighting
** Linux instead of making better products and resorted to using
** marketing trolls to post abusive internet posts.
**
** If you are an investor or plain usenet user and want to complain
** about Appil and Micorshaft and use of corporate boot licking
** trolls to infest your newsgroup, then write to Micoshaft and
** Appil Marketing Department and ask them to stop, or write to the
** ISPs that they use to post net abuse, or complain to
** journalists, newspapers, trade bodies like the
** Better Business Bureau and government.
**
** The internet is not a place for Microshaft or Appil to post
** their abuse at Linux and its users through THEIR PROXIES
** and then go hide behind them like the weasels they are.
**
** http://www.distrowatch.com http://www.livecdlist.com
**
**********************************************************************
Homer
2011-11-12 15:09:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by 7
Post by RayLopez99
Same reason Apple OS X Lion/Leopard is not Linux.
Isn't appil software a derivative work of open source?
Apple's entire portfolio is a derivative work.

Dopez is also a derivative ... one of his inbred cousins must have
humped a cabbage.
--
K. | "UNIX is basically a simple operating
http://slated.org | system, but you have to be a genius
Fedora 8 (Werewolf) on šky | to understand the simplicity"
kernel 2.6.31.5, up 173 days | ~ Dennis Ritchie
7
2011-11-12 15:33:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Homer
Post by 7
Post by RayLopez99
Same reason Apple OS X Lion/Leopard is not Linux.
Isn't appil software a derivative work of open source?
Apple's entire portfolio is a derivative work.
Dopez is also a derivative ... one of his inbred cousins must have
humped a cabbage.
That sad eh?
Peter Köhlmann
2011-11-12 15:46:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by 7
Post by Homer
Post by 7
Post by RayLopez99
Same reason Apple OS X Lion/Leopard is not Linux.
Isn't appil software a derivative work of open source?
Apple's entire portfolio is a derivative work.
Dopez is also a derivative ... one of his inbred cousins must have
humped a cabbage.
That sad eh?
Yes. For the cabbage. It felt (rightly so) being raped
Snit
2011-11-12 17:13:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Homer
Post by 7
Post by RayLopez99
Same reason Apple OS X Lion/Leopard is not Linux.
Isn't appil software a derivative work of open source?
Apple's entire portfolio is a derivative work.
Apple has managed, single handedly, to spread OSS further than any Linux
desktop distro.
--
🙈🙉🙊
Frank The Wank
2011-11-12 17:25:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Snit
Post by Homer
Post by 7
Post by RayLopez99
Same reason Apple OS X Lion/Leopard is not Linux.
Isn't appil software a derivative work of open source?
Apple's entire portfolio is a derivative work.
Apple has managed, single handedly, to spread OSS further than any Linux
desktop distro.
Blame fragmentation, a dysfunctional community where 800 different
versions of Linux exist because of choice and the lack of an
organized campaign.

The public is completely and totally confused when they go to
download Linux and see stuff like this:

# i386 - Install DVD
# x86_64 - Install DVD
# i386 - Network Install CD
# x86_64 - Network Install CD

Total confusion for people who barely know what an ISO is in the
first place.
Then there is the Linux users themselves, especially the ones who
hang out in the forums. Nasty, pompous asses describe a good
percentage of them. And if that wasn't bad enough, their technical
abilities in many cases are highly suspect as well.

Linux has lost it's chance to dominate the desktop and the
interesting part is that for the most part it's not due to the
quality of Linux itself. It's the fact that Linux doesn't really do
anything better than the OS average people are already running and
if you take into account compatibility with their friends, their
office system and so forth, Linux is a very poor choice for a
desktop system indeed. Try syncing, updating, transferring and
sharing calendars with the latest and greatest smart phone using
desktop Linux and you will learn rather fast.
Windows and OSX users don't have that problem.
They plug it in and it works because it's supported.
Linux desktop missed the boat. I see little change in market share
since I used to post here years ago. What I do see is the same
crackpots predicting the death of Microsoft and now Apple as well.
They are like religious cult leaders. Quite ill in the cranium.
Peter Köhlmann
2011-11-12 17:43:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Snit
Post by Homer
Post by 7
Post by RayLopez99
Same reason Apple OS X Lion/Leopard is not Linux.
Isn't appil software a derivative work of open source?
Apple's entire portfolio is a derivative work.
Apple has managed, single handedly, to spread OSS further than any Linux
desktop distro.
Notice the incredible dishonesty of Shit Michael Glasser
Trying to limit linux to "desktop" in order to promote his idiotic claim of
"apple spreading OSS"
There is no computing company anywhere which is more closed than apple
It is totally impossible to create a working (tiny) subset of OSX with just
the open parts. And what is open, is available elsewhere. Most in better
versions
Lt Cmdr. Gaston J. Feeblebunny
2011-11-12 18:00:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Köhlmann
Post by Snit
Post by Homer
Post by 7
Post by RayLopez99
Same reason Apple OS X Lion/Leopard is not Linux.
Isn't appil software a derivative work of open source?
Apple's entire portfolio is a derivative work.
Apple has managed, single handedly, to spread OSS further than any Linux
desktop distro.
Notice the incredible dishonesty of Shit Michael Glasser
Why?
"Apple has managed, single handedly, to spread OSS further than any Linux
desktop distro."
How very true!!!
Post by Peter Köhlmann
Trying to limit linux to "desktop" in order to promote his idiotic claim of
"apple spreading OSS"
Windows, Apple are mainstream,
Desktop Linux however: The Dream Is Dead
"By the time Microsoft released the Windows 7 beta in January 2009, Linux
had clearly lost its chance at desktop glory."
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b5/Operating_system_usage_share.svg
[............]
"Ultimately, Linux is doomed on the desktop because of a critical lack of
content. And that lack of content owes its existence to two key factors: the
fragmentation of the Linux platform, and the fierce ideology of the
open-source community at large."
http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/207999/desktop_linux_the_dream_is_dead.html
Post by Peter Köhlmann
There is no computing company anywhere which is more closed than apple
It is totally impossible to create a working (tiny) subset of OSX with just
the open parts. And what is open, is available elsewhere. Most in better
versions
You must be an incompetent nincompoop, now run along moron!

b.t.w. How is "Wiebke" doing?
Snit
2011-11-12 18:50:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Köhlmann
Post by Snit
Post by Homer
Post by 7
Post by RayLopez99
Same reason Apple OS X Lion/Leopard is not Linux.
Isn't appil software a derivative work of open source?
Apple's entire portfolio is a derivative work.
Apple has managed, single handedly, to spread OSS further than any Linux
desktop distro.
Notice the incredible dishonesty of Shit Michael Glasser
Oh! Oh! This is where you can really humiliate me - quote some of these
"lies" of mine.

Wait. You have none.
Post by Peter Köhlmann
Trying to limit linux to "desktop" in order to promote his idiotic claim of
"apple spreading OSS"
Ah, so you are ignorant enough to not know how much OSS Apple spreads.
Massive amounts. More than any desktop Linux distro.
Post by Peter Köhlmann
There is no computing company anywhere which is more closed than apple
It is totally impossible to create a working (tiny) subset of OSX with just
the open parts. And what is open, is available elsewhere. Most in better
versions
Your opinions there are irrelevant. The point is, Apple spreads more OSS
than any desktop Linux distro... the fact that also sell other software does
not take away from that fact - nor your cult-opinions of their software.

Once again, Peter, you are simply wrong.

Are you *ever* right on anything even slightly technical?
--
🙈🙉🙊
Clogwog
2011-11-12 21:11:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Snit
Post by Peter Köhlmann
Post by Snit
Post by Homer
Post by 7
Post by RayLopez99
Same reason Apple OS X Lion/Leopard is not Linux.
Isn't appil software a derivative work of open source?
Apple's entire portfolio is a derivative work.
Apple has managed, single handedly, to spread OSS further than any Linux
desktop distro.
Notice the incredible dishonesty of Shit Michael Glasser
Oh! Oh! This is where you can really humiliate me - quote some of these
"lies" of mine.
Wait. You have none.
There is *NO* way "Peter Köhlmann" has the ability to humiliate, offend or
hurt me, not in the past, present, future........*never* !
b.t.w.
did he e-mail your wife?, if so, which of his many nyms did he use?
chris
2011-11-12 22:01:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Snit
Post by Peter Köhlmann
Post by Snit
Post by Homer
Post by 7
Post by RayLopez99
Same reason Apple OS X Lion/Leopard is not Linux.
Isn't appil software a derivative work of open source?
Apple's entire portfolio is a derivative work.
Apple has managed, single handedly, to spread OSS further than any
Linux desktop distro.
Notice the incredible dishonesty of Shit Michael Glasser
Oh! Oh! This is where you can really humiliate me - quote some of these
"lies" of mine.
Wait. You have none.
I really worry about your students: What exactly do you teach them?
Post by Snit
Post by Peter Köhlmann
Trying to limit linux to "desktop" in order to promote his idiotic claim
of "apple spreading OSS"
Ah, so you are ignorant enough to not know how much OSS Apple spreads.
Massive amounts. More than any desktop Linux distro.
Can you try to express these "massive amounts" in numbers or percentages?
It is very hard to compare when you never give any numbers.

Also please specify in what way Apple spreads "more" Open Source software
than any desktop linux. Do you mean the total count of all installed Apple
desktop systems has more Open Source programs installed than the total count
of all desktop linuxes?

Would you agree to the statement "Apple spreads more Closed Source software
than any desktop linux distro."? Nobody denies that they have some good Open
Source projects. But you should also acknowledge that they bundle them
together with much closed stuff too.

Then another question comes to my mind. Would you agree with the statement
"Linux on Servers spreads more Open Source software than Mac OS on servers"?
Just wondering, why you are so focussed on one of the not (yet?) so
successful parts of the linux world.

Lastly I don't see how that whole concept is very useful. Who exactly
spreads the apache webserver?

Who exactly spreads Firefox? Obviously it is mostly used on Windows. But
there is nothing special about Windows over Linux that makes it so. Most
other Operating Systems would spread it just equally well or better.
I don't get exactly what you are trying to say.
As I said I am worried about your students considering how much basically
useless metrics and concepts you make up, apparently for the single reason
to make apple look good.
Post by Snit
Post by Peter Köhlmann
There is no computing company anywhere which is more closed than apple
It is totally impossible to create a working (tiny) subset of OSX with
just the open parts. And what is open, is available elsewhere. Most in
better versions
Your opinions there are irrelevant. The point is, Apple spreads more OSS
than any desktop Linux distro... the fact that also sell other software
does not take away from that fact - nor your cult-opinions of their
software.
Once again, Peter, you are simply wrong.
Are you *ever* right on anything even slightly technical?
A propos technical: Have you ever written anything technical that was not
extremely superficial?
Chris Ahlstrom
2011-11-12 22:23:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by chris
Post by Snit
Are you *ever* right on anything even slightly technical?
A propos technical: Have you ever written anything technical that was not
extremely superficial?
Snit is trolling. He doesn't have to be correct.
--
* The_Answer_MD throws spaghetti at everyone
* taniwha eats the spaghetti
* Coderjoe tosses around some meatballs
* Knghtbrd gets the cheese
* taniwha grabs a red
Snit
2011-11-12 22:43:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chris Ahlstrom
Post by chris
Post by Snit
Are you *ever* right on anything even slightly technical?
A propos technical: Have you ever written anything technical that was not
extremely superficial?
Snit is trolling. He doesn't have to be correct.
But you cannot find where I am wrong.

Hence your accusations. Amazing how often the herd resorts to accusations
when they know they cannot support their views. Put the other "side" in the
defensive and hopefully your claims will never have to be supported.

Very, very cult like.
--
🙈🙉🙊
Snit
2011-11-12 22:42:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by chris
Post by Snit
Post by Peter Köhlmann
Post by Snit
Post by Homer
Post by 7
Post by RayLopez99
Same reason Apple OS X Lion/Leopard is not Linux.
Isn't appil software a derivative work of open source?
Apple's entire portfolio is a derivative work.
Apple has managed, single handedly, to spread OSS further than any
Linux desktop distro.
Notice the incredible dishonesty of Shit Michael Glasser
Oh! Oh! This is where you can really humiliate me - quote some of these
"lies" of mine.
Wait. You have none.
I really worry about your students: What exactly do you teach them?
Peter accused me of lying.
I noted he had no examples of my doing so.
You asked me what I teach my students.

What an amazing non sequitur from you!

To get back to the topic: Apple has spread OSS to more people than *any*
desktop Linux distro. Heck, it is likely they have spread it to more than
*all* distros combined.

Peter claims I am lying - but that is only because he is ignorant of the OSS
ecosystem. Remember: in any even slightly technical discussion, it can be
pretty much assured that Peter is wrong.
Post by chris
Post by Snit
Post by Peter Köhlmann
Trying to limit linux to "desktop" in order to promote his idiotic claim
of "apple spreading OSS"
Ah, so you are ignorant enough to not know how much OSS Apple spreads.
Massive amounts. More than any desktop Linux distro.
Can you try to express these "massive amounts" in numbers or percentages?
Percentages of what? The total amount of OSS on desktop computers? When
comparing OS X and Linux desktops? I have no idea what percentage of what
you even want.
Post by chris
It is very hard to compare when you never give any numbers.
If you think I am wrong, then try to name what desktop Linux distro you
think has spread OSS to more people. Or maybe more OSS to more people,
though then how do you measure that: by packages, by lines of code?

But however you count it, Apple - with the OSS in OS X, iOS and other
projects has spread OSS to a massive number of people. It is my contention
that no desktop Linux distro (or distro manager, really) has spread so much.
If you think I am wrong then please name the distro.

Oh, and before the BS who created what is started, of course I know Apple
did not create all of the OSS they have spread or have improved on.
Post by chris
Also please specify in what way Apple spreads "more" Open Source software
than any desktop linux. Do you mean the total count of all installed Apple
desktop systems has more Open Source programs installed than the total count
of all desktop linuxes?
I mean by selling OS X (with its many OSS packages) and through projects
such as WebKit and CUPS (both Apple owned OSS packages).
Post by chris
Would you agree to the statement "Apple spreads more Closed Source software
than any desktop linux distro."?
Of course. Are you implying I should not or that there is something wrong
with that?
Post by chris
Nobody denies that they have some good Open Source projects. But you should
also acknowledge that they bundle them together with much closed stuff too.
Is this in contention by anyone? Not even sure why you bring it up.
Post by chris
Then another question comes to my mind. Would you agree with the statement
"Linux on Servers spreads more Open Source software than Mac OS on servers"?
Yes. Of course.
Post by chris
Just wondering, why you are so focussed on one of the not (yet?) so
successful parts of the linux world.
I merely noted a fact about desktops spreading OSS. But, sure, my focus is
mostly the desktop - as it is for most of COLA discussions. So?
Post by chris
Lastly I don't see how that whole concept is very useful. Who exactly
spreads the apache webserver?
Many people. Those who make Apache, of course, get credit but so do those
who spread it in their OSs or distros (including Apple). Heck, who has
spread Apache to more people than Apple? Anyone?
Post by chris
Who exactly spreads Firefox? Obviously it is mostly used on Windows. But
there is nothing special about Windows over Linux that makes it so. Most
other Operating Systems would spread it just equally well or better.
So?
Post by chris
I don't get exactly what you are trying to say.
The concept is simple: with all the Apple bashing in COLA, and worshipping
of desktop Linux, Apple spreads OSS more than *any* such distro. The Apple
bashing is, thus, counter to the idea of advocating the spreading of OSS.

And it is. How can you say you want OSS to spread but then deify those who
are most successful at spreading it?
Post by chris
As I said I am worried about your students considering how much basically
useless metrics and concepts you make up, apparently for the single reason
to make apple look good.
My students and your insults and accusations are irrelevant - and you bring
them up for no reason other than to put me on the defensive. This shows the
lack of faith you have in your own view.

You really are working to make this as complex as possible. Frankly, the
concept is not complex.
Post by chris
Post by Snit
Post by Peter Köhlmann
There is no computing company anywhere which is more closed than apple
It is totally impossible to create a working (tiny) subset of OSX with
just the open parts. And what is open, is available elsewhere. Most in
better versions
Your opinions there are irrelevant. The point is, Apple spreads more OSS
than any desktop Linux distro... the fact that also sell other software
does not take away from that fact - nor your cult-opinions of their
software.
Once again, Peter, you are simply wrong.
Are you *ever* right on anything even slightly technical?
A propos technical: Have you ever written anything technical that was not
extremely superficial?
Given that much of what I write on technical matters goes over the heads of
the COLA crowd, it is clear you are just making silly accusations to try to
change the topic from the fact that Peter is rarely if ever right in any
debate out anything even slightly technical.
--
🙈🙉🙊
chris
2011-11-13 07:54:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Snit
Post by chris
Post by Snit
Post by Peter Köhlmann
Post by Snit
Post by Homer
Post by 7
Post by RayLopez99
Same reason Apple OS X Lion/Leopard is not Linux.
Isn't appil software a derivative work of open source?
Apple's entire portfolio is a derivative work.
Apple has managed, single handedly, to spread OSS further than any
Linux desktop distro.
Notice the incredible dishonesty of Shit Michael Glasser
Oh! Oh! This is where you can really humiliate me - quote some of
these "lies" of mine.
Wait. You have none.
I really worry about your students: What exactly do you teach them?
Peter accused me of lying.
I noted he had no examples of my doing so.
You asked me what I teach my students.
What an amazing non sequitur from you!
You seem to have trouble understanding what you read. That's why I ask.
Post by Snit
To get back to the topic: Apple has spread OSS to more people than *any*
desktop Linux distro. Heck, it is likely they have spread it to more than
*all* distros combined.
Peter claims I am lying - but that is only because he is ignorant of the OSS
ecosystem. Remember: in any even slightly technical discussion, it can be
pretty much assured that Peter is wrong.
Post by chris
Post by Snit
Post by Peter Köhlmann
Trying to limit linux to "desktop" in order to promote his idiotic
claim of "apple spreading OSS"
Ah, so you are ignorant enough to not know how much OSS Apple spreads.
Massive amounts. More than any desktop Linux distro.
Can you try to express these "massive amounts" in numbers or percentages?
Percentages of what? The total amount of OSS on desktop computers? When
comparing OS X and Linux desktops? I have no idea what percentage of what
you even want.
Post by chris
It is very hard to compare when you never give any numbers.
If you think I am wrong, then try to name what desktop Linux distro you
think has spread OSS to more people. Or maybe more OSS to more people,
though then how do you measure that: by packages, by lines of code?
But however you count it, Apple - with the OSS in OS X, iOS and other
projects has spread OSS to a massive number of people. It is my
contention that no desktop Linux distro (or distro manager, really) has
spread so much. If you think I am wrong then please name the distro.
Oh, and before the BS who created what is started, of course I know Apple
did not create all of the OSS they have spread or have improved on.
Post by chris
Also please specify in what way Apple spreads "more" Open Source software
than any desktop linux. Do you mean the total count of all installed
Apple desktop systems has more Open Source programs installed than the
total count of all desktop linuxes?
I mean by selling OS X (with its many OSS packages) and through projects
such as WebKit and CUPS (both Apple owned OSS packages).
Post by chris
Would you agree to the statement "Apple spreads more Closed Source
software than any desktop linux distro."?
Of course. Are you implying I should not or that there is something wrong
with that?
Post by chris
Nobody denies that they have some good Open Source projects. But you
should also acknowledge that they bundle them together with much closed
stuff too.
Is this in contention by anyone? Not even sure why you bring it up.
Post by chris
Then another question comes to my mind. Would you agree with the
statement "Linux on Servers spreads more Open Source software than Mac OS
on servers"?
Yes. Of course.
Post by chris
Just wondering, why you are so focussed on one of the not (yet?) so
successful parts of the linux world.
I merely noted a fact about desktops spreading OSS. But, sure, my focus is
mostly the desktop - as it is for most of COLA discussions. So?
Post by chris
Lastly I don't see how that whole concept is very useful. Who exactly
spreads the apache webserver?
Many people. Those who make Apache, of course, get credit but so do those
who spread it in their OSs or distros (including Apple). Heck, who has
spread Apache to more people than Apple? Anyone?
...
Post by Snit
Post by chris
Who exactly spreads Firefox? Obviously it is mostly used on Windows. But
there is nothing special about Windows over Linux that makes it so. Most
other Operating Systems would spread it just equally well or better.
So?
Post by chris
I don't get exactly what you are trying to say.
The concept is simple: with all the Apple bashing in COLA, and worshipping
of desktop Linux, Apple spreads OSS more than *any* such distro. The
Apple bashing is, thus, counter to the idea of advocating the spreading of
OSS.
And it is. How can you say you want OSS to spread but then deify those
who are most successful at spreading it?
There you go.

Do you want to say people who favour Open Source software must approve any
vendor of Closed Source software as long as it also includes some Open
Source software?
Post by Snit
Post by chris
As I said I am worried about your students considering how much basically
useless metrics and concepts you make up, apparently for the single
reason to make apple look good.
My students and your insults and accusations are irrelevant - and you bring
them up for no reason other than to put me on the defensive.
I was just asking you a question. What conclusions can I draw from the lack
of an answer? Would you be embarassed by your answer?
Post by Snit
This shows
the lack of faith you have in your own view.
You really are working to make this as complex as possible. Frankly, the
concept is not complex.
No, it isn't. But why not look at the big picture?
Apple took KHTML and improved it to fit their needs. That is fine, that's
what Open Source software is for. But that doesn't mean that I have to like
apple and it doesn't mean I must be happy when they "spread" it by bundling
it in their proprietary browser.
Post by Snit
Post by chris
Post by Snit
Post by Peter Köhlmann
There is no computing company anywhere which is more closed than apple
It is totally impossible to create a working (tiny) subset of OSX with
just the open parts. And what is open, is available elsewhere. Most in
better versions
Your opinions there are irrelevant. The point is, Apple spreads more
OSS than any desktop Linux distro... the fact that also sell other
software does not take away from that fact - nor your cult-opinions of
their software.
Once again, Peter, you are simply wrong.
Are you *ever* right on anything even slightly technical?
A propos technical: Have you ever written anything technical that was not
extremely superficial?
Given that much of what I write on technical matters goes over the heads
of the COLA crowd,
Can you give a single example?
Post by Snit
it is clear you are just making silly accusations
I am not aware of accusations I made.
Post by Snit
to
try to change the topic from the fact that Peter is rarely if ever right
in any debate out anything even slightly technical.
Are you afraid to speak about yourself?
Peter Köhlmann
2011-11-13 09:43:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by chris
Post by Snit
Post by chris
Post by Snit
Post by Peter Köhlmann
Post by Snit
Post by Homer
Post by 7
Post by RayLopez99
Same reason Apple OS X Lion/Leopard is not Linux.
Isn't appil software a derivative work of open source?
Apple's entire portfolio is a derivative work.
Apple has managed, single handedly, to spread OSS further than any
Linux desktop distro.
Notice the incredible dishonesty of Shit Michael Glasser
Oh! Oh! This is where you can really humiliate me - quote some of
these "lies" of mine.
Wait. You have none.
I really worry about your students: What exactly do you teach them?
Peter accused me of lying.
I noted he had no examples of my doing so.
You asked me what I teach my students.
What an amazing non sequitur from you!
You seem to have trouble understanding what you read. That's why I ask.
No need. Snot Michael Glasser has *no* students. Every real student more
intelligent than a desert plant would sneer at that fraud.
Instead Snit Glasser is living off his wifes money. There is no other way to
troll usenet 24/7 and posting in excess of 20.000 Messages to cola alone,
and just under his Snit moniker.
That is not counting other forums and his constant nymshifting in order to
have socks supporting that filthy parasite swine.
chris
2011-11-13 11:13:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Köhlmann
Post by chris
Post by Snit
Post by chris
Post by Snit
Post by Peter Köhlmann
Post by Snit
Post by Homer
Post by 7
Post by RayLopez99
Same reason Apple OS X Lion/Leopard is not Linux.
Isn't appil software a derivative work of open source?
Apple's entire portfolio is a derivative work.
Apple has managed, single handedly, to spread OSS further than any
Linux desktop distro.
Notice the incredible dishonesty of Shit Michael Glasser
Oh! Oh! This is where you can really humiliate me - quote some of
these "lies" of mine.
Wait. You have none.
I really worry about your students: What exactly do you teach them?
Peter accused me of lying.
I noted he had no examples of my doing so.
You asked me what I teach my students.
What an amazing non sequitur from you!
You seem to have trouble understanding what you read. That's why I ask.
No need. Snot Michael Glasser has *no* students. Every real student more
intelligent than a desert plant would sneer at that fraud.
I cannot judge teaching skills from posts here alone. That's why I ask him.
I even watched 2 or 3 of his videos but they all are very, very basic. So I
asked again.
Post by Peter Köhlmann
Instead Snit Glasser is living off his wifes money.
Not my concern. How he gets his money should be pretty irrelevant as long as
it is legal.
Post by Peter Köhlmann
There is no other way
to troll usenet 24/7 and posting in excess of 20.000 Messages to cola
alone, and just under his Snit moniker.
That in fact I find a bit obsessive.
Post by Peter Köhlmann
That is not counting other forums and his constant nymshifting in order to
have socks supporting that filthy parasite swine.
Which is only an (educated?) guess and should be labeled as such.
Chris Ahlstrom
2011-11-13 12:41:55 UTC
Permalink
Pull my finger, dude!
--
Did YOU find a DIGITAL WATCH in YOUR box of VELVEETA?
Snit
2011-11-13 15:56:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by chris
Post by Peter Köhlmann
Post by chris
Post by Snit
Post by chris
Post by Snit
Post by Peter Köhlmann
Post by Snit
Post by Homer
Post by 7
Post by RayLopez99
Same reason Apple OS X Lion/Leopard is not Linux.
Isn't appil software a derivative work of open source?
Apple's entire portfolio is a derivative work.
Apple has managed, single handedly, to spread OSS further than any
Linux desktop distro.
Notice the incredible dishonesty of Shit Michael Glasser
Oh! Oh! This is where you can really humiliate me - quote some of
these "lies" of mine.
Wait. You have none.
I really worry about your students: What exactly do you teach them?
Peter accused me of lying.
I noted he had no examples of my doing so.
You asked me what I teach my students.
What an amazing non sequitur from you!
You seem to have trouble understanding what you read. That's why I ask.
No need. Snot Michael Glasser has *no* students. Every real student more
intelligent than a desert plant would sneer at that fraud.
I cannot judge teaching skills from posts here alone. That's why I ask him.
I even watched 2 or 3 of his videos but they all are very, very basic. So I
asked again.
My job is irrelevant to the discussion and the forum, but you (and Peter
even more so) like to try to change the topic to it in order to put me on
the defensive and change the topic.

Remember: the topic was Peter accusing me of lying.

And my noting how he has *no* support for this. None.

And he does not. He knows it. You know it. But you will not call him on that
false accusation of his. Why not? Why change the topic to something
completely irrelevant to COLA?
Post by chris
Post by Peter Köhlmann
Instead Snit Glasser is living off his wifes money.
Not my concern. How he gets his money should be pretty irrelevant as long as
it is legal.
And, of course, Peter is just making things up. He does that a lot.
...
--
🙈🙉🙊
chris
2011-11-13 16:08:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Snit
Post by chris
Post by Peter Köhlmann
Post by chris
Post by Snit
Post by chris
Post by Snit
Post by Peter Köhlmann
Post by Snit
Post by Homer
Post by 7
Post by RayLopez99
Same reason Apple OS X Lion/Leopard is not Linux.
Isn't appil software a derivative work of open source?
Apple's entire portfolio is a derivative work.
Apple has managed, single handedly, to spread OSS further than
any Linux desktop distro.
Notice the incredible dishonesty of Shit Michael Glasser
Oh! Oh! This is where you can really humiliate me - quote some of
these "lies" of mine.
Wait. You have none.
I really worry about your students: What exactly do you teach them?
Peter accused me of lying.
I noted he had no examples of my doing so.
You asked me what I teach my students.
What an amazing non sequitur from you!
You seem to have trouble understanding what you read. That's why I ask.
No need. Snot Michael Glasser has *no* students. Every real student more
intelligent than a desert plant would sneer at that fraud.
I cannot judge teaching skills from posts here alone. That's why I ask
him. I even watched 2 or 3 of his videos but they all are very, very
basic. So I asked again.
My job is irrelevant to the discussion and the forum, but you (and Peter
even more so) like to try to change the topic
The topic was already changed by you. Apple spreading open source was not
the topic. The topic was whether android is a kind of linux.
Post by Snit
to it in order to put me on
the defensive and change the topic.
Do you feel you need to be defensive answering that question?
Post by Snit
Remember: the topic was Peter accusing me of lying.
The topic was: "Why is Android not Linux?"
Post by Snit
And my noting how he has *no* support for this. None.
And he does not. He knows it. You know it. But you will not call him on that
false accusation of his. Why not?
Because he didn't accuse you of lying. You made that up. He accused you of
dishonesty.
Post by Snit
Why change the topic to something
completely irrelevant to COLA?
Post by chris
Post by Peter Köhlmann
Instead Snit Glasser is living off his wifes money.
Not my concern. How he gets his money should be pretty irrelevant as long
as it is legal.
And, of course, Peter is just making things up. He does that a lot.
...
Ad hominem attacks are still not my concern in this newsgroup.
Snit
2011-11-13 16:25:36 UTC
Permalink
chris stated in post j9oq2p$36g$***@inf2.informatik.uni-stuttgart.de on
11/13/11 9:08 AM:

...
Post by chris
Post by Snit
Post by chris
I cannot judge teaching skills from posts here alone. That's why I ask
him. I even watched 2 or 3 of his videos but they all are very, very
basic. So I asked again.
My job is irrelevant to the discussion and the forum, but you (and Peter
even more so) like to try to change the topic
The topic was already changed by you. Apple spreading open source was not
the topic. The topic was whether android is a kind of linux.
Android has somewhat modified Linux as its kernel. Is there anyone in COLA
who does not know this? It is not the traditional desktop Linux with
KDE/Gnome based apps and the like.

But conversations drift... fine. But when you try to change the topic to
people's personal and professional lives and you insinuate derogatory things
about same, it speaks about you.

So let's drop that and go back to the other two topics in discussion:

1) Peter made a false accusation against me. He accused me of dishonesty
but cannot provide any examples. You did not comment on this.

2) True open source advocates will celebrate when open large amounts of open
source software is spread to many, many people. I know I do. This does not
mean one has to approve of everything any such "spreading" entity does, but
to fail to acknowledge the largest spreaders of open source software for
what they are shows one is not really an open source advocate (or at least
not an informed one).

...
Post by chris
Post by Snit
And he does not. He knows it. You know it. But you will not call him on that
false accusation of his. Why not?
Because he didn't accuse you of lying. You made that up. He accused you of
dishonesty.
He has not a single example of my being dishonest. But you show no signs of
being bothered by has false accusations. I, personally, am against people
making false accusations. We each, however, have different sets of morals.
--
🙈🙉🙊
Clogwog
2011-11-14 20:03:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by chris
Post by Snit
Post by chris
Post by chris
Post by Snit
Post by chris
Post by Peter Köhlmann
Post by Snit
Post by Homer
Post by 7
Post by RayLopez99
Same reason Apple OS X Lion/Leopard is not Linux.
Isn't appil software a derivative work of open source?
Apple's entire portfolio is a derivative work.
Apple has managed, single handedly, to spread OSS further than
any Linux desktop distro.
Notice the incredible dishonesty of Shit Michael Glasser
Oh! Oh! This is where you can really humiliate me - quote some of
these "lies" of mine.
Wait. You have none.
I really worry about your students: What exactly do you teach them?
Peter accused me of lying.
I noted he had no examples of my doing so.
You asked me what I teach my students.
What an amazing non sequitur from you!
You seem to have trouble understanding what you read. That's why I ask.
No need. Snot Michael Glasser has no students. Every real student
more
intelligent than a desert plant would sneer at that fraud.
I cannot judge teaching skills from posts here alone. That's why I ask
him. I even watched 2 or 3 of his videos but they all are very, very
basic. So I asked again.
My job is irrelevant to the discussion and the forum, but you (and Peter
even more so) like to try to change the topic
The topic was already changed by you. Apple spreading open source was not
the topic. The topic was whether android is a kind of linux.
Post by Snit
to it in order to put me on
the defensive and change the topic.
Do you feel you need to be defensive answering that question?
Post by Snit
Remember: the topic was Peter accusing me of lying.
The topic was: "Why is Android not Linux?"
Post by Snit
And my noting how he has no support for this. None.
And he does not. He knows it. You know it. But you will not call him on that
false accusation of his. Why not?
Because he didn't accuse you of lying. You made that up. He accused you of
dishonesty.
Post by Snit
Why change the topic to something
completely irrelevant to COLA?
Post by chris
Instead Snit Glasser is living off his wifes money.
Not my concern. How he gets his money should be pretty irrelevant as long
as it is legal.
And, of course, Peter is just making things up. He does that a lot.
...
Ad hominem attacks are still not my concern in this newsgroup.
http://distrowatch.com/dwres.php?resource=links#otheros
Android is no Linux distro
b.t.w.
Fix your newsreader
Clogwog
2011-11-13 11:55:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Köhlmann
Post by chris
Post by Snit
Post by chris
Post by Snit
Post by Peter Köhlmann
Post by Snit
Post by Homer
Post by 7
Post by RayLopez99
Same reason Apple OS X Lion/Leopard is not Linux.
Isn't appil software a derivative work of open source?
Apple's entire portfolio is a derivative work.
Apple has managed, single handedly, to spread OSS further than any
Linux desktop distro.
Notice the incredible dishonesty of Shit Michael Glasser
Oh! Oh! This is where you can really humiliate me - quote some of
these "lies" of mine.
Wait. You have none.
I really worry about your students: What exactly do you teach them?
Peter accused me of lying.
I noted he had no examples of my doing so.
You asked me what I teach my students.
What an amazing non sequitur from you!
You seem to have trouble understanding what you read. That's why I ask.
No need. Snot Michael Glasser has *no* students.
<To Chris>
http://www.yc.edu/webtools/apps/contactus/empview.asp?eid=211605
Don't believe one word what your deranged fellow country man has to say, his
blind hatred towards Snit and his family has no boundaries.
Wannebe NAZI clown "Peter Köhlmann" even tries to harass him by e-mailing
his wife and employer and the police, spreading lies about Snit.
But since you are a herd member as well, I bet you have no opinion about
Peter's behavior and his endless lies?
Chris Ahlstrom
2011-11-13 12:44:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Clogwog
http://www.yc.edu/webtools/apps/contactus/empview.asp?eid=211605
Yikes! That guy is a computer science professor!?!?!
--
If at first you don't succeed, try, try again.
-- W.E. Hickson
Clogwog
2011-11-13 13:13:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chris Ahlstrom
Post by Clogwog
http://www.yc.edu/webtools/apps/contactus/empview.asp?eid=211605
Yikes! That guy is a computer science professor!?!?!
No, a teacher and instructor, maybe a coach for students, the ones Peter
Kuntkopf denies exist.
Clogwog
2011-11-13 13:13:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chris Ahlstrom
Post by Clogwog
http://www.yc.edu/webtools/apps/contactus/empview.asp?eid=211605
Yikes! That guy is a computer science professor!?!?!
No, a teacher and instructor, maybe a coach for students, the ones Peter
Kuntkopf denies exist.
Homer
2011-11-13 14:33:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chris Ahlstrom
Post by Clogwog
http://www.yc.edu/webtools/apps/contactus/empview.asp?eid=211605
Yikes! That guy is a computer science professor!?!?!
"Professor" of clicking buttons, maybe.

He probably doubles as the janitor.
--
K. | "UNIX is basically a simple operating
http://slated.org | system, but you have to be a genius
Fedora 8 (Werewolf) on šky | to understand the simplicity"
kernel 2.6.31.5, up 174 days | ~ Dennis Ritchie
Snit
2011-11-13 15:52:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Köhlmann
Post by chris
Post by Snit
Peter accused me of lying.
I noted he had no examples of my doing so.
You asked me what I teach my students.
What an amazing non sequitur from you!
You seem to have trouble understanding what you read. That's why I ask.
No need. Snot Michael Glasser has *no* students. Every real student more
intelligent than a desert plant would sneer at that fraud.
Instead Snit Glasser is living off his wifes money. There is no other way to
troll usenet 24/7 and posting in excess of 20.000 Messages to cola alone,
and just under his Snit moniker.
That is not counting other forums and his constant nymshifting in order to
have socks supporting that filthy parasite swine.
And not a single one of the herd will stand up and tell Peter such behavior
is wrong.

Then they deny they are a herd.
--
🙈🙉🙊
Snit
2011-11-13 16:16:25 UTC
Permalink
chris stated in post j9nt4c$jo1$***@inf2.informatik.uni-stuttgart.de on
11/13/11 12:54 AM:

...
Post by chris
Post by Snit
Post by chris
Post by Snit
Oh! Oh! This is where you can really humiliate me - quote some of
these "lies" of mine.
Wait. You have none.
I really worry about your students: What exactly do you teach them?
Peter accused me of lying.
I noted he had no examples of my doing so.
You asked me what I teach my students.
What an amazing non sequitur from you!
You seem to have trouble understanding what you read. That's why I ask.
I understand perfectly: you changed the topic to something completely
irrelevant.

Why not get back on topic and note how Peter is making false accusations? Or
talk about OSS and Apple? You know... something other than my personal life
which is irrelevant to COLA?
Post by chris
Post by Snit
To get back to the topic: Apple has spread OSS to more people than *any*
desktop Linux distro. Heck, it is likely they have spread it to more than
*all* distros combined.
Peter claims I am lying - but that is only because he is ignorant of the OSS
ecosystem. Remember: in any even slightly technical discussion, it can be
pretty much assured that Peter is wrong.
No comment on this from you: do you have any counter examples? Any place
where Peter was right in an even slightly technical discussion?
Post by chris
Post by Snit
Post by chris
Post by Snit
Post by Peter Köhlmann
Trying to limit linux to "desktop" in order to promote his idiotic claim
of "apple spreading OSS"
Ah, so you are ignorant enough to not know how much OSS Apple spreads.
Massive amounts. More than any desktop Linux distro.
Can you try to express these "massive amounts" in numbers or percentages?
Percentages of what? The total amount of OSS on desktop computers? When
comparing OS X and Linux desktops? I have no idea what percentage of what
you even want.
And no comment from you. Interesting.
Post by chris
Post by Snit
Post by chris
It is very hard to compare when you never give any numbers.
If you think I am wrong, then try to name what desktop Linux distro you think
has spread OSS to more people. Or maybe more OSS to more people, though then
how do you measure that: by packages, by lines of code?
But however you count it, Apple - with the OSS in OS X, iOS and other
projects has spread OSS to a massive number of people. It is my contention
that no desktop Linux distro (or distro manager, really) has spread so much.
If you think I am wrong then please name the distro.
Oh, and before the BS who created what is started, of course I know Apple did
not create all of the OSS they have spread or have improved on.
Post by chris
Also please specify in what way Apple spreads "more" Open Source software
than any desktop linux. Do you mean the total count of all installed Apple
desktop systems has more Open Source programs installed than the total count
of all desktop linuxes?
I mean by selling OS X (with its many OSS packages) and through projects such
as WebKit and CUPS (both Apple owned OSS packages).
Post by chris
Would you agree to the statement "Apple spreads more Closed Source software
than any desktop linux distro."?
Of course. Are you implying I should not or that there is something wrong
with that?
Post by chris
Nobody denies that they have some good Open Source projects. But you should
also acknowledge that they bundle them together with much closed stuff too.
Is this in contention by anyone? Not even sure why you bring it up.
Post by chris
Then another question comes to my mind. Would you agree with the statement
"Linux on Servers spreads more Open Source software than Mac OS on servers"?
Yes. Of course.
Post by chris
Just wondering, why you are so focussed on one of the not (yet?) so
successful parts of the linux world.
I merely noted a fact about desktops spreading OSS. But, sure, my focus is
mostly the desktop - as it is for most of COLA discussions. So?
Post by chris
Lastly I don't see how that whole concept is very useful. Who exactly
spreads the apache webserver?
Many people. Those who make Apache, of course, get credit but so do those
who spread it in their OSs or distros (including Apple). Heck, who has
spread Apache to more people than Apple? Anyone?
...
Post by Snit
Post by chris
Who exactly spreads Firefox? Obviously it is mostly used on Windows. But
there is nothing special about Windows over Linux that makes it so. Most
other Operating Systems would spread it just equally well or better.
So?
Post by chris
I don't get exactly what you are trying to say.
The concept is simple: with all the Apple bashing in COLA, and worshipping
of desktop Linux, Apple spreads OSS more than *any* such distro. The
Apple bashing is, thus, counter to the idea of advocating the spreading of
OSS.
And it is. How can you say you want OSS to spread but then deify those
who are most successful at spreading it?
There you go.
Right: I explained my view well.
Post by chris
Do you want to say people who favour Open Source software must approve any
vendor of Closed Source software as long as it also includes some Open
Source software?
Any vender who includes any? Where did you get that? But if you claim to
advocate the spread of OSS, yeah, you should be happy when OSS is spread.
And those who spread a lot of it to many, many people should be shown
appreciation for doing as you wish. Does not mean you have to like
everything they do or like their products. But in COLA those who spread many
OSS packages to many people are *not* seen in a good light - the focus is
*not* on those who spread OSS, but on putting down those who spread non-OSS.
Roy has described his own feelings for such successful companies (or at
least one such company) as "envy", though he later tried to back down from
this admission. Still, I think that is largely what is going on: people in
COLA are frustrated at the lack of success of desktop Linux and envy Apple
and MS for their success.
Post by chris
Post by Snit
Post by chris
As I said I am worried about your students considering how much basically
useless metrics and concepts you make up, apparently for the single reason
to make apple look good.
My students and your insults and accusations are irrelevant - and you bring
them up for no reason other than to put me on the defensive.
I was just asking you a question. What conclusions can I draw from the lack of
an answer? Would you be embarassed by your answer?
You are changing the topic to my personal / professional life... and it is
not an open topic.
Post by chris
Post by Snit
This shows the lack of faith you have in your own view.
You really are working to make this as complex as possible. Frankly, the
concept is not complex.
No, it isn't. But why not look at the big picture? Apple took KHTML and
improved it to fit their needs. That is fine, that's what Open Source software
is for. But that doesn't mean that I have to like apple and it doesn't mean I
must be happy when they "spread" it by bundling it in their proprietary
browser.
Right: you do not need to be happy about the spreading of massive amounts of
OSS to many, many people. I, however, am an advocate of open source software
and thus am happy to see open source software spread. Not everyone is going
to be an open source advocate, though, so you I have no problem with you not
sharing my joy at seeing open source software spread.
Post by chris
Post by Snit
Post by chris
Post by Snit
Post by Peter Köhlmann
There is no computing company anywhere which is more closed than apple
It is totally impossible to create a working (tiny) subset of OSX with
just the open parts. And what is open, is available elsewhere. Most in
better versions
Your opinions there are irrelevant. The point is, Apple spreads more
OSS than any desktop Linux distro... the fact that also sell other
software does not take away from that fact - nor your cult-opinions of
their software.
Once again, Peter, you are simply wrong.
Are you *ever* right on anything even slightly technical?
A propos technical: Have you ever written anything technical that was not
extremely superficial?
Given that much of what I write on technical matters goes over the heads
of the COLA crowd,
Can you give a single example?
Oh my... easy! I can give several:

1) The idea that open source advocates would be happy with open source
propagating. This is a technical matter (at least peripherally) but even you
seem to be struggling with the concept. Peter reacted even less well.

2) Very basic GUI concept, such as how UIs affect productivity, error
levels, efficiency, and even enjoyment of a device. There have been many
such discussions - and RonB cannot understand the concepts at all, bizarrely
and incorrectly claiming that I am advocating less choice (when I really
want more), for example. I cannot think of any of the herd that showed
reasonable understanding on this topic. Chris A. misrepresented my views and
claimed I was saying software is useless unless it is like Mac/Win software.
Others in the herd have made equally bizarre claims that show how ignorant
they are on the topic (as has cc, who is not a herd member as far as I
know).

3) The concept that modern home routers do more than just what is
technically "routing". This was a fairly lengthy debate at one point... I
do not wish to rehash it.

4) Roy and I discussed PCLOS both past and present - even though I had not
used the current version, I was more accurate in my description of it than
was Roy... and he was even more wrong about the older version. The concept
that he was wrong is one he has never been able to admit to (to the
contrary, he started lying about me knowing about PCLOS only though
screenshots and videos.)
Post by chris
Post by Snit
it is clear you are just making silly accusations
I am not aware of accusations I made.
The ones about my personal / professional life.
Post by chris
Post by Snit
to try to change the topic from the fact that Peter is rarely if ever right
in any debate out anything even slightly technical.
Are you afraid to speak about yourself?
I am not the topic... and given the level of attacks I have had against me
in both a personal and professional capacity it would make no sense to
follow you on your off topic BS speculations about such. Heck, I do not even
know what you do for a living - and I do not care.
--
🙈🙉🙊
Chris Ahlstrom
2011-11-12 19:52:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Köhlmann
Post by Snit
Post by Homer
Post by 7
Post by RayLopez99
Same reason Apple OS X Lion/Leopard is not Linux.
Isn't appil software a derivative work of open source?
Apple's entire portfolio is a derivative work.
Apple has managed, single handedly, to spread OSS further than any Linux
desktop distro.
Notice the incredible dishonesty of Shit Michael Glasser
Trying to limit linux to "desktop" in order to promote his idiotic claim of
"apple spreading OSS"
There is no computing company anywhere which is more closed than apple
It is totally impossible to create a working (tiny) subset of OSX with just
the open parts. And what is open, is available elsewhere. Most in better
versions
Also note:

From: Frank The Wank <***@hotmail.org>

Yesterday:

NNTP-Posting-Host: MFivw/VQPXg/KpWD/uMJNw.user.speranza.aioe.org

Today:

NNTP-Posting-Host: /LnYD/15IwtDGKo/VKL1cg.user.speranza.aioe.org

Anyway, yeah, Snit is being silly. Apple has spread a closed form of
FreeBSD around quite a bit, but that's about it.

As far as your "closed" claim, this guy seems to agree:

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/11/14/111114fa_fact_gladwell?currentPage=3

The architects wanted the windows to open. Jobs said no. He “had
never liked the idea of people being able to open things. ‘That would
just allow people to screw things up.’ ”
--
In 1869 the waffle iron was invented for people who had wrinkled waffles.
William Poaster
2011-11-12 23:06:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Snit
Post by Homer
Post by 7
Post by RayLopez99
Same reason Apple OS X Lion/Leopard is not Linux.
Isn't appil software a derivative work of open source?
Apple's entire portfolio is a derivative work.
Apple has managed, single handedly, to spread OSS further than any
Linux desktop distro.
Notice the incredible dishonesty of Shit Michael Glasser Trying to limit
linux to "desktop" in order to promote his idiotic claim of "apple
spreading OSS"
It's utter bullshit, of course. OSX is only about 80% FreeBSD & the
rest is Apple's proprietary crap bolted on. Then the whole lot is subject
to Apple's restrictive practises.
There is no computing company anywhere which is more closed than apple It
is totally impossible to create a working (tiny) subset of OSX with just
the open parts. And what is open, is available elsewhere. Most in better
versions
Exactly.
Snit
2011-11-13 00:13:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by William Poaster
Post by Snit
Post by Homer
Post by 7
Post by RayLopez99
Same reason Apple OS X Lion/Leopard is not Linux.
Isn't appil software a derivative work of open source?
Apple's entire portfolio is a derivative work.
Apple has managed, single handedly, to spread OSS further than any
Linux desktop distro.
Notice the incredible dishonesty of Shit Michael Glasser Trying to limit
linux to "desktop" in order to promote his idiotic claim of "apple
spreading OSS"
It's utter bullshit, of course. OSX is only about 80% FreeBSD & the
rest is Apple's proprietary crap bolted on. Then the whole lot is subject
to Apple's restrictive practises.
Nobody is claiming all of OS X is open source.

Really, why is it you herd members have such a hard time with simple
concepts?
Post by William Poaster
There is no computing company anywhere which is more closed than apple It
is totally impossible to create a working (tiny) subset of OSX with just
the open parts. And what is open, is available elsewhere. Most in better
versions
Exactly.
And irrelevant to the point I made. Remember, the point is: Apple is bashed
and vilified by the herd, a group which *pretends* to like the idea of
companies which spread OSS. The fact is, Apple *does* spread OSS, more so,
even, than Ubuntu or PCLOS or any other Linux desktop distro.

Those who want to see the spreading of OSS should be grateful for Apple.
But that is not what the COLA "advocates" want - they want the destruction
of non-OSS. They want to destroy, not build.
--
🙈🙉🙊
7
2011-11-12 17:43:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Frank The Wank
Post by Snit
Post by Homer
Post by 7
Post by RayLopez99
Same reason Apple OS X Lion/Leopard is not Linux.
Isn't appil software a derivative work of open source?
Apple's entire portfolio is a derivative work.
Apple has managed, single handedly, to spread OSS further than any Linux
desktop distro.
Blame fragmentation, a dysfunctional community where 800 different
versions of Linux exist because of choice and the lack of an
organized campaign.
The public
Who do you claim to be the public?
And why are they not free to make their choices?
Post by Frank The Wank
is completely and totally confused when they go to
# i386 - Install DVD
# x86_64 - Install DVD
# i386 - Network Install CD
# x86_64 - Network Install CD
Total confusion for people who barely know what an ISO is in the
first place.
Then there is the Linux users themselves, especially the ones who
hang out in the forums. Nasty, pompous asses describe a good
percentage of them. And if that wasn't bad enough, their technical
abilities in many cases are highly suspect as well.
Linux has lost it's chance to dominate the desktop and the
interesting part is that for the most part it's not due to the
quality of Linux itself. It's the fact that Linux doesn't really do
anything better than the OS average people are already running and
if you take into account compatibility with their friends, their
office system and so forth, Linux is a very poor choice for a
desktop system indeed. Try syncing, updating, transferring and
sharing calendars with the latest and greatest smart phone using
desktop Linux and you will learn rather fast.
Windows and OSX users don't have that problem.
They plug it in and it works because it's supported.
Linux desktop missed the boat. I see little change in market share
since I used to post here years ago. What I do see is the same
crackpots predicting the death of Microsoft and now Apple as well.
They are like religious cult leaders. Quite ill in the cranium.
Frank The Wank
2011-11-12 17:57:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by 7
Post by Frank The Wank
Blame fragmentation, a dysfunctional community where 800 different
versions of Linux exist because of choice and the lack of an
organized campaign.
The public
Who do you claim to be the public?
And why are they not free to make their choices?
If you are incapable of reading and understanding a simple sentence,
I would suggest you have someone near and dear to you explain it to
you. I never claimed to be the public, although by default I am and
so are you. Even in your current mental state of retardation.

As for claims,did you really win the European Inventor of the Year
award? That's quite a prestigious award. Congratulations on that
accomplishment.
Do you have a CV to substantiate your claims? I'd be interested in
viewing it if you do not mind.
Snit
2011-11-12 21:59:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by 7
Post by Frank The Wank
Post by Snit
Post by Homer
Post by 7
Post by RayLopez99
Same reason Apple OS X Lion/Leopard is not Linux.
Isn't appil software a derivative work of open source?
Apple's entire portfolio is a derivative work.
Apple has managed, single handedly, to spread OSS further than any Linux
desktop distro.
Blame fragmentation, a dysfunctional community where 800 different
versions of Linux exist because of choice and the lack of an
organized campaign.
The public
Who do you claim to be the public?
And why are they not free to make their choices?
They are. And, except in very small numbers, they do not pick Linux for
their desktop needs.

It is your cult that insists they cannot make their own choices - and you
insist this to avoid talking about the inherent weakness of desktop Linux.
...
--
🙈🙉🙊
Snit
2011-11-13 17:18:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Frank The Wank
Post by Snit
Post by Homer
Post by 7
Post by RayLopez99
Same reason Apple OS X Lion/Leopard is not Linux.
Isn't appil software a derivative work of open source?
Apple's entire portfolio is a derivative work.
Apple has managed, single handedly, to spread OSS further than any Linux
desktop distro.
Blame fragmentation, a dysfunctional community where 800 different
versions of Linux exist because of choice and the lack of an
organized campaign.
Yes. And a lack of compelling software. There are many, many common tasks
which simply are done better on alternatives to desktop Linux.
Post by Frank The Wank
The public is completely and totally confused when they go to
# i386 - Install DVD
# x86_64 - Install DVD
# i386 - Network Install CD
# x86_64 - Network Install CD
Total confusion for people who barely know what an ISO is in the
first place.
Exactly correct.
Post by Frank The Wank
Then there is the Linux users themselves, especially the ones who
hang out in the forums. Nasty, pompous asses describe a good
percentage of them. And if that wasn't bad enough, their technical
abilities in many cases are highly suspect as well.
At least in COLA, exactly right. Heck, read Peter's accusations of my
"lying" when I note, correctly, that Apple spreads a *lot* of OSS.
Post by Frank The Wank
Linux has lost it's chance to dominate the desktop and the
interesting part is that for the most part it's not due to the
quality of Linux itself.
If you mean the kernel itself - I agree.
Post by Frank The Wank
It's the fact that Linux doesn't really do
anything better than the OS average people are already running and
if you take into account compatibility with their friends, their
office system and so forth, Linux is a very poor choice for a
desktop system indeed.
Correct... though as Internet kiosks grow in importance, "desktop" Linux is
being given another chance.
Post by Frank The Wank
Try syncing, updating, transferring and
sharing calendars with the latest and greatest smart phone using
desktop Linux and you will learn rather fast.
Windows and OSX users don't have that problem.
They plug it in and it works because it's supported.
Linux desktop missed the boat. I see little change in market share
since I used to post here years ago. What I do see is the same
crackpots predicting the death of Microsoft and now Apple as well.
They are like religious cult leaders. Quite ill in the cranium.
Agreed.
--
🙈🙉🙊
Frank The Wank
2011-11-13 17:44:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Snit
Post by Frank The Wank
Blame fragmentation, a dysfunctional community where 800 different
versions of Linux exist because of choice and the lack of an
organized campaign.
Yes. And a lack of compelling software. There are many, many common tasks
which simply are done better on alternatives to desktop Linux.
http://stats.wikimedia.org/wikimedia/squids/SquidReportOperatingSystems.htm

Linux as a traditional desktop system is doing horribly.
Mostly for the reasons previously cited.

Take a look at Roy's irc and you will constantly see people having
trouble shoehorning Linux into everyday life. They jump from irc
client to irc client trying to find one that doesn't have bugs.
They jump from distribution to distribution for the same reasons.

One has to wonder when they get time to actually USE Linux rather
than fitz around with it.

It's all laughable and a testement to the poor quality of Linux
programs.
While the kernel may be rock solid, the ancillary programs are
mostly crap.
And they know this full well.

Just look at all the problems the audio bites idiots had trying to
make alternative to Skype systems function.

It was like a 4 ring circus.

And that's highly typical of Linux in general.
Snit
2011-11-13 18:55:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Frank The Wank
Post by Snit
Post by Frank The Wank
Blame fragmentation, a dysfunctional community where 800 different
versions of Linux exist because of choice and the lack of an
organized campaign.
Yes. And a lack of compelling software. There are many, many common tasks
which simply are done better on alternatives to desktop Linux.
http://stats.wikimedia.org/wikimedia/squids/SquidReportOperatingSystems.htm
Linux as a traditional desktop system is doing horribly.
Mostly for the reasons previously cited.
Take a look at Roy's irc and you will constantly see people having
trouble shoehorning Linux into everyday life. They jump from irc
client to irc client trying to find one that doesn't have bugs.
They jump from distribution to distribution for the same reasons.
One has to wonder when they get time to actually USE Linux rather
than fitz around with it.
It's all laughable and a testement to the poor quality of Linux
programs.
While the kernel may be rock solid, the ancillary programs are
mostly crap.
And they know this full well.
In the context of the desktop there is a lot of truth to this... and keeping
in mind that "mostly crap" is a comparative assessment. If it had existed in
its current form, say, 10 or 20 years ago it would be rather amazing (even
if not very well polished).
Post by Frank The Wank
Just look at all the problems the audio bites idiots had trying to
make alternative to Skype systems function.
It was like a 4 ring circus.
And that's highly typical of Linux in general.
If you look at Roy's "Photoshopping" you will also see some pretty poor
results:

<http://techrights.org/2011/11/07/attachmate-stewardship/>
Look at the N in the sign. Here, I did a few *seconds* worth of work on the
image: <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/novell-dump/>

There you can see Roy's, mine (better quality and smaller), and a roll-over
so you can easily see a comparison. And then there is this - even more
recent:

<http://techrights.org/2011/11/12/us-action-against-msft-crimes/>

If Roy had Photoshop or the equal, he could have selected Ballmer's head
much better than that. In seconds. Its "quick selection" tool is amazing.
--
🙈🙉🙊
Goblin
2011-11-13 19:07:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Snit
If Roy had Photoshop or the equal
So then thats not Free Software or Linux's fault...Thats Adobe not
bringing a native Photoshop to Linux and a lack of a viable competitor
to Photoshop on any platform (I assume). People say GIMP is great, but
since I don't really need a photo editing suite, I wouldn't say myself.
Post by Snit
There you can see Roy's, mine (better quality and smaller), and a roll-over
so you can easily see a comparison.
And this is maybe why you have problems with COLA users. What is the
point in your exercise? To show up Roy? To show up Linux? To show up
Gimp or Free Software? What was the point? I'd have hoped you would
have better things to do, now you can maybe see why some may think you
have a somewhat unhealthy obsession with certain people and topics?

Most people would not care... If you can do better in Photoshop, use
photoshop, if you are happy with Gimp, use Gimp.... Would you go around
the whole web correcting peoples images or it just Roys?

I would suggest to you (as someone who has, to the detriment of himself)
treated you with respect, to let go of this issue with Roy, move on.
Nobody cares either way now.
--
Openbytes the Linux/FOSS Blogazine! - http://www.openbytes.tk
"Cave quid dicis, quando, et cui."
Catch me in #techrights on freenode.net

BytesMedia: www.bytesmedia.co.uk

Email: ***@googlemail.com
Diaspora: https://joindiaspora.com/u/goblin
Identi.ca: identi.ca/openbytes
Twitter: twitter.com/_goblin

Skype: tim.openbytes
Snit
2011-11-13 19:41:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Goblin
Post by Snit
If Roy had Photoshop or the equal
So then thats not Free Software or Linux's fault...Thats Adobe not
bringing a native Photoshop to Linux and a lack of a viable competitor
to Photoshop on any platform (I assume). People say GIMP is great, but
since I don't really need a photo editing suite, I wouldn't say myself.
GIMP is great. Do not get me wrong. For a free image editor it might even
be the best. But people in COLA often compare it to Photoshop as an
"equal"... and when it is pointed out that it is not the claim is it mostly
is, but maybe not for some pros. The images I pointed to show this is not
the case (unless Roy or whoever edited those images is quite incompetent).

As far as "fault": I did not even comment on that. Is it the open source
developers "fault" or Adobe's "fault" that neither Photoshop nor anything
its equal is supported on desktop Linux? It does not matter. What I am
looking at is usability, efficiency, productivity, etc. - and desktop Linux
is lacking here. This is true in many areas.

If you do want to talk about "fault", Adobe has been fairly clear as to why
they do not bring Photoshop to Linux: the platform is too fragmented, the
tools are not mature enough, and there are few who would buy it. For far
more info, see here: <http://forums.adobe.com/thread/487814>.
Post by Goblin
Post by Snit
There you can see Roy's, mine (better quality and smaller), and a roll-over
so you can easily see a comparison.
And this is maybe why you have problems with COLA users. What is the
point in your exercise? To show up Roy? To show up Linux? To show up
Gimp or Free Software? What was the point? I'd have hoped you would
have better things to do, now you can maybe see why some may think you
have a somewhat unhealthy obsession with certain people and topics?
The topic was how open source software does not serve people as well. Here
is a direct example from one of the biggest supporters of open source in
COLA. It took mere moments to put together... and it shows, well, how the
open source tools that Roy uses (presumably) are not serving him
particularly well - even in a case where one need not be looking for
professional usage.

In other words: it shows that a common belief in COLA about open source
software is not true, or at least not supported and how there is
counter-evidence.
Post by Goblin
Most people would not care... If you can do better in Photoshop, use
photoshop, if you are happy with Gimp, use Gimp.... Would you go around
the whole web correcting peoples images or it just Roys?
I am showing the common belief in COLA is not correct (or, more accurately,
showing evidence it is not - I am open to counter claims).
Post by Goblin
I would suggest to you (as someone who has, to the detriment of himself)
treated you with respect, to let go of this issue with Roy, move on.
Nobody cares either way now.
I do think people care if open source software serves people as well as the
alternatives. Without speaking for others, I will note *I* care. And where
there are open source alternatives which serve me well, I use them... and
advocate them. Chrome is largely open source and it is the browser I
suggest to most of my Windows clients, for example. I would not if I did
not think it would serve them well. I often point people to Apache and
WordPress and FireFox and Thunderbird (even with its weaknesses) and
FileZilla and CyberDuck and Audacity and Handbrake and even distros such as
Ubuntu and Mint.

I also suggest Open Office (or, more recently, LibreOffice) and GIMP for
some... even though they are not as good as other products, they do have
value. And with GIMP, I suggest it to my web students for the making (or at
least converting) of favicons. Still mind boggling why Photoshop handles
those so poorly.
--
🙈🙉🙊
Goblin
2011-11-13 19:53:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Snit
Post by Goblin
Post by Snit
If Roy had Photoshop or the equal
So then thats not Free Software or Linux's fault...Thats Adobe not
bringing a native Photoshop to Linux and a lack of a viable competitor
to Photoshop on any platform (I assume). People say GIMP is great, but
since I don't really need a photo editing suite, I wouldn't say myself.
GIMP is great. Do not get me wrong. For a free image editor it might even
be the best. But people in COLA often compare it to Photoshop as an
"equal"... and when it is pointed out that it is not the claim is it mostly
is, but maybe not for some pros. The images I pointed to show this is not
the case (unless Roy or whoever edited those images is quite incompetent).
As far as "fault": I did not even comment on that. Is it the open source
developers "fault" or Adobe's "fault" that neither Photoshop nor anything
its equal is supported on desktop Linux? It does not matter. What I am
looking at is usability, efficiency, productivity, etc. - and desktop Linux
is lacking here. This is true in many areas.
If you do want to talk about "fault", Adobe has been fairly clear as to why
they do not bring Photoshop to Linux: the platform is too fragmented, the
tools are not mature enough, and there are few who would buy it. For far
more info, see here:<http://forums.adobe.com/thread/487814>.
Post by Goblin
Post by Snit
There you can see Roy's, mine (better quality and smaller), and a roll-over
so you can easily see a comparison.
And this is maybe why you have problems with COLA users. What is the
point in your exercise? To show up Roy? To show up Linux? To show up
Gimp or Free Software? What was the point? I'd have hoped you would
have better things to do, now you can maybe see why some may think you
have a somewhat unhealthy obsession with certain people and topics?
The topic was how open source software does not serve people as well. Here
is a direct example from one of the biggest supporters of open source in
COLA. It took mere moments to put together... and it shows, well, how the
open source tools that Roy uses (presumably) are not serving him
particularly well - even in a case where one need not be looking for
professional usage.
In other words: it shows that a common belief in COLA about open source
software is not true, or at least not supported and how there is
counter-evidence.
Post by Goblin
Most people would not care... If you can do better in Photoshop, use
photoshop, if you are happy with Gimp, use Gimp.... Would you go around
the whole web correcting peoples images or it just Roys?
I am showing the common belief in COLA is not correct (or, more accurately,
showing evidence it is not - I am open to counter claims).
Post by Goblin
I would suggest to you (as someone who has, to the detriment of himself)
treated you with respect, to let go of this issue with Roy, move on.
Nobody cares either way now.
I do think people care if open source software serves people as well as the
alternatives. Without speaking for others, I will note *I* care. And where
there are open source alternatives which serve me well, I use them... and
advocate them. Chrome is largely open source and it is the browser I
suggest to most of my Windows clients, for example. I would not if I did
not think it would serve them well. I often point people to Apache and
WordPress and FireFox and Thunderbird (even with its weaknesses) and
FileZilla and CyberDuck and Audacity and Handbrake and even distros such as
Ubuntu and Mint.
I also suggest Open Office (or, more recently, LibreOffice) and GIMP for
some... even though they are not as good as other products, they do have
value. And with GIMP, I suggest it to my web students for the making (or at
least converting) of favicons. Still mind boggling why Photoshop handles
those so poorly.
Snit,
Post by Snit
But people in COLA often compare it to Photoshop as an
"equal"...
So? People in a Ford forum will probably favour ford... Manchester
United fans will continue to support Man U even if they loose to
Liverpool.... So what? - This goes back to the "herd" which whilst used
here in a derogatory sense is exampled in the human condition perfectly
in every facet of life.

If this was a forum with more mainstream status I could maybe more
understand your exercise you conducted, but we are not talking a
mainstream focus and sadly Usenet itself is lost on many...

For many people's needs Gimp may be enough or not...its not for you or
me to say what people require, all you do is let them experience it
themselves and let them decide.

Personally Gimp would be a better choice for me since I have no real
need of a photo suite and the needs I have would be very simple. I see
no reason why I should buy Photoshop. For others it may be different,
but in the end, who cares? I bet someone else on Gimp could have done a
better job than you, but again who cares?

Roy likes/uses Gimp, I assume you like and use Photoshop - fine. I
think people are very able to try both themselves and make their own
mind up (since GIMP is available on other platforms)

But again I ask, whats the point in your little exercise? Do I have to
get my gfx designer friend to do a Ballmer picture better than both of
you? and if I did, what does it prove? Photoshop is better or my friend
has more skill?

Pointless.
--
Openbytes the Linux/FOSS Blogazine! - http://www.openbytes.tk
"Cave quid dicis, quando, et cui."
Catch me in #techrights on freenode.net

BytesMedia: www.bytesmedia.co.uk

Email: ***@googlemail.com
Diaspora: https://joindiaspora.com/u/goblin
Identi.ca: identi.ca/openbytes
Twitter: twitter.com/_goblin

Skype: tim.openbytes
Snit
2011-11-13 20:16:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Goblin
Post by Snit
Post by Goblin
Post by Snit
If Roy had Photoshop or the equal
So then thats not Free Software or Linux's fault...Thats Adobe not
bringing a native Photoshop to Linux and a lack of a viable competitor
to Photoshop on any platform (I assume). People say GIMP is great, but
since I don't really need a photo editing suite, I wouldn't say myself.
GIMP is great. Do not get me wrong. For a free image editor it might even
be the best. But people in COLA often compare it to Photoshop as an
"equal"... and when it is pointed out that it is not the claim is it mostly
is, but maybe not for some pros. The images I pointed to show this is not
the case (unless Roy or whoever edited those images is quite incompetent).
As far as "fault": I did not even comment on that. Is it the open source
developers "fault" or Adobe's "fault" that neither Photoshop nor anything
its equal is supported on desktop Linux? It does not matter. What I am
looking at is usability, efficiency, productivity, etc. - and desktop Linux
is lacking here. This is true in many areas.
If you do want to talk about "fault", Adobe has been fairly clear as to why
they do not bring Photoshop to Linux: the platform is too fragmented, the
tools are not mature enough, and there are few who would buy it. For far
more info, see here:<http://forums.adobe.com/thread/487814>.
Post by Goblin
Post by Snit
There you can see Roy's, mine (better quality and smaller), and a roll-over
so you can easily see a comparison.
And this is maybe why you have problems with COLA users. What is the
point in your exercise? To show up Roy? To show up Linux? To show up
Gimp or Free Software? What was the point? I'd have hoped you would
have better things to do, now you can maybe see why some may think you
have a somewhat unhealthy obsession with certain people and topics?
The topic was how open source software does not serve people as well. Here
is a direct example from one of the biggest supporters of open source in
COLA. It took mere moments to put together... and it shows, well, how the
open source tools that Roy uses (presumably) are not serving him
particularly well - even in a case where one need not be looking for
professional usage.
In other words: it shows that a common belief in COLA about open source
software is not true, or at least not supported and how there is
counter-evidence.
Post by Goblin
Most people would not care... If you can do better in Photoshop, use
photoshop, if you are happy with Gimp, use Gimp.... Would you go around
the whole web correcting peoples images or it just Roys?
I am showing the common belief in COLA is not correct (or, more accurately,
showing evidence it is not - I am open to counter claims).
Post by Goblin
I would suggest to you (as someone who has, to the detriment of himself)
treated you with respect, to let go of this issue with Roy, move on.
Nobody cares either way now.
I do think people care if open source software serves people as well as the
alternatives. Without speaking for others, I will note *I* care. And where
there are open source alternatives which serve me well, I use them... and
advocate them. Chrome is largely open source and it is the browser I
suggest to most of my Windows clients, for example. I would not if I did
not think it would serve them well. I often point people to Apache and
WordPress and FireFox and Thunderbird (even with its weaknesses) and
FileZilla and CyberDuck and Audacity and Handbrake and even distros such as
Ubuntu and Mint.
I also suggest Open Office (or, more recently, LibreOffice) and GIMP for
some... even though they are not as good as other products, they do have
value. And with GIMP, I suggest it to my web students for the making (or at
least converting) of favicons. Still mind boggling why Photoshop handles
those so poorly.
Snit,
Post by Snit
But people in COLA often compare it to Photoshop as an
"equal"...
So?
They are pushing a position which is demonstrably false. I am countering
false information.

This is, of course, not contrary to my being pro-open source.
Post by Goblin
People in a Ford forum will probably favour ford... Manchester
United fans will continue to support Man U even if they loose to
Liverpool.... So what? - This goes back to the "herd" which whilst used
here in a derogatory sense is exampled in the human condition perfectly
in every facet of life.
If Ford enthusiasts are pushing information about Fords which is
demonstrably false I am against that, too. I am not, however, a Ford
advocate, so it does not hit my radar. As an open source advocate, however,
it does hit my radar when people lie about open source software. I am
against such behavior.
Post by Goblin
If this was a forum with more mainstream status I could maybe more
understand your exercise you conducted, but we are not talking a
mainstream focus and sadly Usenet itself is lost on many...
For many people's needs Gimp may be enough or not...its not for you or
me to say what people require, all you do is let them experience it
themselves and let them decide.
Absolutely! I certainly am not suggesting people not try is - and as I have
noted to you I have even recommended it to people when I think it is
appropriate to do so!
Post by Goblin
Personally Gimp would be a better choice for me since I have no real
need of a photo suite and the needs I have would be very simple. I see
no reason why I should buy Photoshop. For others it may be different,
but in the end, who cares? I bet someone else on Gimp could have done a
better job than you, but again who cares?
I am not suggesting you buy Photoshop, but the example I gave was where even
for *simple* needs, such as making a selection which would be quite trivial
in Photoshop, GIMP (presumably) does not show itself well. Maybe Roy can
comment on what product he actually used - I am admittedly assuming GIMP or
some other open source package. If so, then Roy has put the open source
package in a poor light. I think that is a detriment to the open source
movement. And it is clearly contrary to the common idea, which you hint at
above, that the open source products are just as good for simple needs.
Post by Goblin
Roy likes/uses Gimp, I assume you like and use Photoshop - fine. I
think people are very able to try both themselves and make their own
mind up (since GIMP is available on other platforms)
No argument here. But that does not mean I should not counter unsupported
claims about the products!
Post by Goblin
But again I ask, whats the point in your little exercise? Do I have to
get my gfx designer friend to do a Ballmer picture better than both of
you? and if I did, what does it prove? Photoshop is better or my friend
has more skill?
Pointless.
This is a trivial exercise. If it is one that needed a "pro" to do then it
would defeat the point. The idea is that, contrary to the common claim of
COLA, even for "simple" stuff, the open source image editing products are
often not as capable. On the other hand, as I have noted, there are also
areas where they are better (my "pet" example is working with favicons).
--
🙈🙉🙊
Goblin
2011-11-13 20:47:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Snit
Post by Goblin
Post by Snit
Post by Goblin
Post by Snit
If Roy had Photoshop or the equal
So then thats not Free Software or Linux's fault...Thats Adobe not
bringing a native Photoshop to Linux and a lack of a viable competitor
to Photoshop on any platform (I assume). People say GIMP is great, but
since I don't really need a photo editing suite, I wouldn't say myself.
GIMP is great. Do not get me wrong. For a free image editor it might even
be the best. But people in COLA often compare it to Photoshop as an
"equal"... and when it is pointed out that it is not the claim is it mostly
is, but maybe not for some pros. The images I pointed to show this is not
the case (unless Roy or whoever edited those images is quite incompetent).
As far as "fault": I did not even comment on that. Is it the open source
developers "fault" or Adobe's "fault" that neither Photoshop nor anything
its equal is supported on desktop Linux? It does not matter. What I am
looking at is usability, efficiency, productivity, etc. - and desktop Linux
is lacking here. This is true in many areas.
If you do want to talk about "fault", Adobe has been fairly clear as to why
they do not bring Photoshop to Linux: the platform is too fragmented, the
tools are not mature enough, and there are few who would buy it. For far
more info, see here:<http://forums.adobe.com/thread/487814>.
Post by Goblin
Post by Snit
There you can see Roy's, mine (better quality and smaller), and a roll-over
so you can easily see a comparison.
And this is maybe why you have problems with COLA users. What is the
point in your exercise? To show up Roy? To show up Linux? To show up
Gimp or Free Software? What was the point? I'd have hoped you would
have better things to do, now you can maybe see why some may think you
have a somewhat unhealthy obsession with certain people and topics?
The topic was how open source software does not serve people as well. Here
is a direct example from one of the biggest supporters of open source in
COLA. It took mere moments to put together... and it shows, well, how the
open source tools that Roy uses (presumably) are not serving him
particularly well - even in a case where one need not be looking for
professional usage.
In other words: it shows that a common belief in COLA about open source
software is not true, or at least not supported and how there is
counter-evidence.
Post by Goblin
Most people would not care... If you can do better in Photoshop, use
photoshop, if you are happy with Gimp, use Gimp.... Would you go around
the whole web correcting peoples images or it just Roys?
I am showing the common belief in COLA is not correct (or, more accurately,
showing evidence it is not - I am open to counter claims).
Post by Goblin
I would suggest to you (as someone who has, to the detriment of himself)
treated you with respect, to let go of this issue with Roy, move on.
Nobody cares either way now.
I do think people care if open source software serves people as well as the
alternatives. Without speaking for others, I will note *I* care. And where
there are open source alternatives which serve me well, I use them... and
advocate them. Chrome is largely open source and it is the browser I
suggest to most of my Windows clients, for example. I would not if I did
not think it would serve them well. I often point people to Apache and
WordPress and FireFox and Thunderbird (even with its weaknesses) and
FileZilla and CyberDuck and Audacity and Handbrake and even distros such as
Ubuntu and Mint.
I also suggest Open Office (or, more recently, LibreOffice) and GIMP for
some... even though they are not as good as other products, they do have
value. And with GIMP, I suggest it to my web students for the making (or at
least converting) of favicons. Still mind boggling why Photoshop handles
those so poorly.
Snit,
Post by Snit
But people in COLA often compare it to Photoshop as an
"equal"...
So?
They are pushing a position which is demonstrably false. I am countering
false information.
This is, of course, not contrary to my being pro-open source.
Post by Goblin
People in a Ford forum will probably favour ford... Manchester
United fans will continue to support Man U even if they loose to
Liverpool.... So what? - This goes back to the "herd" which whilst used
here in a derogatory sense is exampled in the human condition perfectly
in every facet of life.
If Ford enthusiasts are pushing information about Fords which is
demonstrably false I am against that, too. I am not, however, a Ford
advocate, so it does not hit my radar. As an open source advocate, however,
it does hit my radar when people lie about open source software. I am
against such behavior.
Post by Goblin
If this was a forum with more mainstream status I could maybe more
understand your exercise you conducted, but we are not talking a
mainstream focus and sadly Usenet itself is lost on many...
For many people's needs Gimp may be enough or not...its not for you or
me to say what people require, all you do is let them experience it
themselves and let them decide.
Absolutely! I certainly am not suggesting people not try is - and as I have
noted to you I have even recommended it to people when I think it is
appropriate to do so!
Post by Goblin
Personally Gimp would be a better choice for me since I have no real
need of a photo suite and the needs I have would be very simple. I see
no reason why I should buy Photoshop. For others it may be different,
but in the end, who cares? I bet someone else on Gimp could have done a
better job than you, but again who cares?
I am not suggesting you buy Photoshop, but the example I gave was where even
for *simple* needs, such as making a selection which would be quite trivial
in Photoshop, GIMP (presumably) does not show itself well. Maybe Roy can
comment on what product he actually used - I am admittedly assuming GIMP or
some other open source package. If so, then Roy has put the open source
package in a poor light. I think that is a detriment to the open source
movement. And it is clearly contrary to the common idea, which you hint at
above, that the open source products are just as good for simple needs.
Post by Goblin
Roy likes/uses Gimp, I assume you like and use Photoshop - fine. I
think people are very able to try both themselves and make their own
mind up (since GIMP is available on other platforms)
No argument here. But that does not mean I should not counter unsupported
claims about the products!
Post by Goblin
But again I ask, whats the point in your little exercise? Do I have to
get my gfx designer friend to do a Ballmer picture better than both of
you? and if I did, what does it prove? Photoshop is better or my friend
has more skill?
Pointless.
This is a trivial exercise. If it is one that needed a "pro" to do then it
would defeat the point. The idea is that, contrary to the common claim of
COLA, even for "simple" stuff, the open source image editing products are
often not as capable. On the other hand, as I have noted, there are also
areas where they are better (my "pet" example is working with favicons).
Post by Goblin
They are pushing a position which is demonstrably false. I am countering
false information.
This is, of course, not contrary to my being pro-open source.
If "they" think Gimp is better and you Photoshop, whats the harm, this
is Usenet, not the comments section on ZDnet....Are you really saying
that you are countering anything?
Post by Snit
I am
against such behavior.
But you are not, or at least when it comes to certain nyms personally
insulting people here....apparently that type of position is not
something you have a responsibility to counter..

What we are talking about is opinion. If (for example) Photoshop was
the answer to everything for everyone then you wouldn't need to post at
all.... I'd also suggest that Roy's views (which you haven't countered
re: Gimp merely reworked his picture in Photoshop) are not powerful
enough to bring down Adobe's Photoshop even if he intended that (which
he doesn't)

As I say, if this was a mainstream forum then maybe your points would be
relevant, but its not.
Post by Snit
If so, then Roy has put the open source
package in a poor light. I think that is a detriment to the open source
movement.
Lets step back here and be honest. This is not about Linux, its not
about Gimp, this is you feeling hard done by with Roy's previous
comments. There's plenty of people on the net claiming that Gimp is
better (and on bigger forums) so it makes no sense to bring your
opinions here unless its because of Roy specifically.

This is why you jumped on the chance to support Ender, he too had a
grievance again Roy and why it ultimately pushed my tolerance too far.
Post by Snit
This is a trivial exercise. If it is one that needed a "pro" to do then it
would defeat the point.
Ok, then someone with more GIMP experience than you or Roy, if I
attempted that picture in either Photoshop or Gimp, my effort would be
considerably worse than yours or Roys...in for a shock here, that
feature is not important to, whichever package does it best.....In my
experience, GIMP does the few things I require very well..... For me its
far better a choice than Photoshop.

But then as I say, this is about Roy, not Gimp...otherwise you would be
taking this position to GIMP forums directly where support of GIMP is
far stronger...

Unless of course you suggest that the entire FOSS world rests on what
Roy says? I think we are all able to make up our own minds.
--
Openbytes the Linux/FOSS Blogazine! - http://www.openbytes.tk
"Cave quid dicis, quando, et cui."
Catch me in #techrights on freenode.net

BytesMedia: www.bytesmedia.co.uk

Email: ***@googlemail.com
Diaspora: https://joindiaspora.com/u/goblin
Identi.ca: identi.ca/openbytes
Twitter: twitter.com/_goblin

Skype: tim.openbytes
Snit
2011-11-13 21:11:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Goblin
Post by Snit
Post by Goblin
Post by Snit
But people in COLA often compare it to Photoshop as an
"equal"...
So?
They are pushing a position which is demonstrably false. I am countering
false information.
This is, of course, not contrary to my being pro-open source.
Post by Goblin
People in a Ford forum will probably favour ford... Manchester
United fans will continue to support Man U even if they loose to
Liverpool.... So what? - This goes back to the "herd" which whilst used
here in a derogatory sense is exampled in the human condition perfectly
in every facet of life.
If Ford enthusiasts are pushing information about Fords which is
demonstrably false I am against that, too. I am not, however, a Ford
advocate, so it does not hit my radar. As an open source advocate, however,
it does hit my radar when people lie about open source software. I am
against such behavior.
Post by Goblin
If this was a forum with more mainstream status I could maybe more
understand your exercise you conducted, but we are not talking a
mainstream focus and sadly Usenet itself is lost on many...
For many people's needs Gimp may be enough or not...its not for you or
me to say what people require, all you do is let them experience it
themselves and let them decide.
Absolutely! I certainly am not suggesting people not try is - and as I have
noted to you I have even recommended it to people when I think it is
appropriate to do so!
Post by Goblin
Personally Gimp would be a better choice for me since I have no real
need of a photo suite and the needs I have would be very simple. I see
no reason why I should buy Photoshop. For others it may be different,
but in the end, who cares? I bet someone else on Gimp could have done a
better job than you, but again who cares?
I am not suggesting you buy Photoshop, but the example I gave was where even
for *simple* needs, such as making a selection which would be quite trivial
in Photoshop, GIMP (presumably) does not show itself well. Maybe Roy can
comment on what product he actually used - I am admittedly assuming GIMP or
some other open source package. If so, then Roy has put the open source
package in a poor light. I think that is a detriment to the open source
movement. And it is clearly contrary to the common idea, which you hint at
above, that the open source products are just as good for simple needs.
Post by Goblin
Roy likes/uses Gimp, I assume you like and use Photoshop - fine. I
think people are very able to try both themselves and make their own
mind up (since GIMP is available on other platforms)
No argument here. But that does not mean I should not counter unsupported
claims about the products!
Post by Goblin
But again I ask, whats the point in your little exercise? Do I have to
get my gfx designer friend to do a Ballmer picture better than both of
you? and if I did, what does it prove? Photoshop is better or my friend
has more skill?
Pointless.
This is a trivial exercise. If it is one that needed a "pro" to do then it
would defeat the point. The idea is that, contrary to the common claim of
COLA, even for "simple" stuff, the open source image editing products are
often not as capable. On the other hand, as I have noted, there are also
areas where they are better (my "pet" example is working with favicons).
Post by Goblin
They are pushing a position which is demonstrably false. I am countering
false information.
This is, of course, not contrary to my being pro-open source.
If "they" think Gimp is better and you Photoshop, whats the harm, this
is Usenet, not the comments section on ZDnet....Are you really saying
that you are countering anything?
I have no problem with someone preferring GIMP to Photoshop.

I have a problem with posting false information to push open source in a
dishonest (or, at best, inaccurate) way. I value open source and want to
see it spread.
Post by Goblin
Post by Snit
I am against such behavior.
But you are not, or at least when it comes to certain nyms personally
insulting people here....apparently that type of position is not
something you have a responsibility to counter..
You keep repeating this claim... no matter how much it is countered. Not
sure why.
Post by Goblin
What we are talking about is opinion. If (for example) Photoshop was
the answer to everything for everyone then you wouldn't need to post at
all.... I'd also suggest that Roy's views (which you haven't countered
re: Gimp merely reworked his picture in Photoshop) are not powerful
enough to bring down Adobe's Photoshop even if he intended that (which
he doesn't)
As I say, if this was a mainstream forum then maybe your points would be
relevant, but its not.
The claim is that GIMP works as well as Photoshop, if not in general at
least for simple needs. This claim is made to give a *dishonest* boost to
open source... with the hopes that people will not know better. I have now
posted a clear example which shows even for "simple" work - work a non-pro
might do - this is not true.

I am open, of course, to counters to this.
Post by Goblin
Post by Snit
If so, then Roy has put the open source package in a poor light. I think
that is a detriment to the open source movement.
Lets step back here and be honest. This is not about Linux, its not
about Gimp, this is you feeling hard done by with Roy's previous
comments.
This is about comments about open source software, specifically GIMP as it
compares to Photoshop.
Post by Goblin
There's plenty of people on the net claiming that Gimp is
better (and on bigger forums) so it makes no sense to bring your
opinions here unless its because of Roy specifically.
This is why you jumped on the chance to support Ender, he too had a
grievance again Roy and why it ultimately pushed my tolerance too far.
You keep asking why I am countering points from COLA in COLA. Seems the
reasonable place to do so!
Post by Goblin
Post by Snit
This is a trivial exercise. If it is one that needed a "pro" to do then it
would defeat the point.
Ok, then someone with more GIMP experience than you or Roy, if I
attempted that picture in either Photoshop or Gimp, my effort would be
considerably worse than yours or Roys...in for a shock here, that
feature is not important to, whichever package does it best.....In my
experience, GIMP does the few things I require very well..... For me its
far better a choice than Photoshop.
I am OK with that. For a limited number of features it is fine, and its
lower cost makes it a better solution for some situations.

But the myth of COLA is that Photoshop is better (if anywhere) only for high
end needs. I showed two counter-examples to that.
Post by Goblin
But then as I say, this is about Roy, not Gimp...otherwise you would be
taking this position to GIMP forums directly where support of GIMP is
far stronger...
I am responding to COLA claims in COLA. Why would I respond to them
elsewhere? I do not follow that logic.
Post by Goblin
Unless of course you suggest that the entire FOSS world rests on what
Roy says? I think we are all able to make up our own minds.
I am speaking of COLA claims in COLA. Again, I do not see the confusion on
this issue. Seems pretty simple to me.
--
🙈🙉🙊
Goblin
2011-11-13 21:22:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Snit
You keep repeating this claim... no matter how much it is countered. Not
sure why.
Ok..In the last week, show me one challenge of lets say "Big Steels"
behaviour. Just one....
--
Openbytes the Linux/FOSS Blogazine! - http://www.openbytes.tk
"Cave quid dicis, quando, et cui."
Catch me in #techrights on freenode.net

BytesMedia: www.bytesmedia.co.uk

Email: ***@googlemail.com
Diaspora: https://joindiaspora.com/u/goblin
Identi.ca: identi.ca/openbytes
Twitter: twitter.com/_goblin

Skype: tim.openbytes
Snit
2011-11-13 21:29:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Goblin
Post by Snit
You keep repeating this claim... no matter how much it is countered. Not
sure why.
Ok..In the last week, show me one challenge of lets say "Big Steels"
behaviour. Just one....
You snipped your claim:
-----
But you are not, or at least when it comes to certain nyms
personally insulting people here....apparently that type of
position is not something you have a responsibility to
counter..
----

I noted, correctly, I have done what you claim I have not. Now, through
snipping, you are making it look as though I claimed I had commented about a
specific person - a claim I never made.

We have both agreed it would be silly to try to read and comment on every
"bad" thing that happens in COLA... but here you are insinuating it is wrong
for me to not do so.

You also snipped all content about what is, to me, the much more interesting
topic: GIMP and how it is portrayed in COLA.
--
🙈🙉🙊
Goblin
2011-11-13 21:45:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Snit
You also snipped all content about what is, to me, the much more interesting
topic: GIMP and how it is portrayed in COLA.
And you've made no mention about the points I raise about COLA. As I say
if opinion that GIMP is far better than Photoshop offends you so much, I
would suggest you get yourself over to the GIMP forums, there's loads of
it there and its in a far more mainstream environment than Usenet/cola...

Like I say, I think we both know though that this is more about Roy than
it is about Gimp, otherwise we would see you champion of Photoshop in
every forum where people (rightly or wrongly) claim that Gimp is equal
to or better than Photoshop.

Personally I would THINK Photoshop better, but I (and like many people)
am not prepared to pay for a software thats not written for Linux for
features that I would never use.

Go ahead, I'll even agree that you are correct and Photoshop (in the
example you worked on) is better than GIMP....So what? Does that make
you feel better? Does that change anything? End of debate..Its no big deal.
--
Openbytes the Linux/FOSS Blogazine! - http://www.openbytes.tk
"Cave quid dicis, quando, et cui."
Catch me in #techrights on freenode.net

BytesMedia: www.bytesmedia.co.uk

Email: ***@googlemail.com
Diaspora: https://joindiaspora.com/u/goblin
Identi.ca: identi.ca/openbytes
Twitter: twitter.com/_goblin

Skype: tim.openbytes
Snit
2011-11-13 21:58:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Goblin
Post by Snit
You also snipped all content about what is, to me, the much more interesting
topic: GIMP and how it is portrayed in COLA.
And you've made no mention about the points I raise about COLA.
Your keep making points about how we should not be expected to comment on
all "bad" behavior. I have noted I agree. Not sure what else you are
looking for.
Post by Goblin
As I say if opinion that GIMP is far better than Photoshop offends you so
much, I would suggest you get yourself over to the GIMP forums, there's loads
of it there and its in a far more mainstream environment than Usenet/cola...
A couple of bad assumptions there:

1) You assume I am offended by an opinion. I am not.
2) You assume I should respond to points made in COLA in another forum. I
have asked you why I should do that - and you have not been able to give a
reason I think is valid.
Post by Goblin
Like I say, I think we both know though that this is more about Roy than
it is about Gimp, otherwise we would see you champion of Photoshop in
every forum where people (rightly or wrongly) claim that Gimp is equal
to or better than Photoshop.
This is a false assumption. You keep focusing on Roy. Why? As I have
noted, my use of his images assumes *good* about him and benefits him.
Post by Goblin
Personally I would THINK Photoshop better, but I (and like many people)
am not prepared to pay for a software thats not written for Linux for
features that I would never use.
Fair enough. And I agree that this is a big benefit of OSS - the purchase
price. I have also noted where I suggest OSS on the desktop for this
reason... and sometimes also for the programs being better even without that
as a consideration.
Post by Goblin
Go ahead, I'll even agree that you are correct and Photoshop (in the
example you worked on) is better than GIMP....So what? Does that make
you feel better? Does that change anything? End of debate..Its no big deal.
OK, you agree that, at least in the example shown, GIMP does not do a good
job even with a simple, non-pro case. That was my point. Not a point worth
debating and arguing over for a dozen posts. :)

But it is a point I would like you to keep in mind the next time RonB or
another "advocate" claims GIMP is a good replacement for Photoshop or that
Photoshop is only a benefit in niche cases. This is clearly not the case.
--
🙈🙉🙊
Goblin
2011-11-13 22:12:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Snit
Post by Goblin
Post by Snit
You also snipped all content about what is, to me, the much more interesting
topic: GIMP and how it is portrayed in COLA.
And you've made no mention about the points I raise about COLA.
Your keep making points about how we should not be expected to comment on
all "bad" behavior. I have noted I agree. Not sure what else you are
looking for.
Post by Goblin
As I say if opinion that GIMP is far better than Photoshop offends you so
much, I would suggest you get yourself over to the GIMP forums, there's loads
of it there and its in a far more mainstream environment than Usenet/cola...
1) You assume I am offended by an opinion. I am not.
2) You assume I should respond to points made in COLA in another forum. I
have asked you why I should do that - and you have not been able to give a
reason I think is valid.
Post by Goblin
Like I say, I think we both know though that this is more about Roy than
it is about Gimp, otherwise we would see you champion of Photoshop in
every forum where people (rightly or wrongly) claim that Gimp is equal
to or better than Photoshop.
This is a false assumption. You keep focusing on Roy. Why? As I have
noted, my use of his images assumes *good* about him and benefits him.
Post by Goblin
Personally I would THINK Photoshop better, but I (and like many people)
am not prepared to pay for a software thats not written for Linux for
features that I would never use.
Fair enough. And I agree that this is a big benefit of OSS - the purchase
price. I have also noted where I suggest OSS on the desktop for this
reason... and sometimes also for the programs being better even without that
as a consideration.
Post by Goblin
Go ahead, I'll even agree that you are correct and Photoshop (in the
example you worked on) is better than GIMP....So what? Does that make
you feel better? Does that change anything? End of debate..Its no big deal.
OK, you agree that, at least in the example shown, GIMP does not do a good
job even with a simple, non-pro case. That was my point. Not a point worth
debating and arguing over for a dozen posts. :)
But it is a point I would like you to keep in mind the next time RonB or
another "advocate" claims GIMP is a good replacement for Photoshop or that
Photoshop is only a benefit in niche cases. This is clearly not the case.
Michael, come on...as I said before, please consider how much time you
Post by Snit
This is a false assumption. You keep focusing on Roy. Why? As I have
noted, my use of his images assumes *good* about him and benefits him.
And you wouldn't be offended if someone who had been arguing with you on
COLA, on your site, trying to get heard in IRC then improved your work?
You really saying this would not wind you up? Come on.
Post by Snit
But it is a point I would like you to keep in mind the next time RonB or
another "advocate" claims GIMP is a good replacement for Photoshop or that
Photoshop is only a benefit in niche cases. This is clearly not the case.
But Michael, Its an opinion. Personally I have views on Apple products
which are very different to yours. They are opinions and haven't been
appropriate to bring up here due to not being relevant.

In a forum where OSS is discussed and advocated, what do you expect to
find? and who do you think hears your counter? Other OSS advocates. If
you are on a mission to remove what you percieve as FUD about Photoshop
v Gimp, then I would suggest you do that in a forum where the mainstream
read... Thats why I suggest this whole Gimp thing was merely another
notch in your campaign against Roy and your opinions on him. Ironically
this would have all been forgotten if you hadn't repeatedly brought it
up, over and over and over again. And even if you have a point, who are
you trying to convince? Big Steel? Frank? As long as you promote
Microsoft then they will believe anything you say.....

Can you understand what I'm trying to say? This whole campaign is
unhealthy and its counter-productive....

If you believe as you said before, that I have been decent to you,
please, just consider this...please.
--
Openbytes the Linux/FOSS Blogazine! - http://www.openbytes.tk
"Cave quid dicis, quando, et cui."
Catch me in #techrights on freenode.net

BytesMedia: www.bytesmedia.co.uk

Email: ***@googlemail.com
Diaspora: https://joindiaspora.com/u/goblin
Identi.ca: identi.ca/openbytes
Twitter: twitter.com/_goblin

Skype: tim.openbytes
Snit
2011-11-13 22:35:01 UTC
Permalink
Goblin stated in post WgXvq.14844$***@newsfe03.ams2 on 11/13/11 3:12
PM:

...
Post by Goblin
Post by Snit
But it is a point I would like you to keep in mind the next time RonB or
another "advocate" claims GIMP is a good replacement for Photoshop or that
Photoshop is only a benefit in niche cases. This is clearly not the case.
Michael, come on...as I said before, please consider how much time you
I have expended a lot on this conversation... and frankly I am not sure
where it is going nor what point you are making. You keep focusing on Roy
and talking about brining COLA discussions to other forums and the like. I
have not been able to understand your view.
Post by Goblin
Post by Snit
This is a false assumption. You keep focusing on Roy. Why? As I have
noted, my use of his images assumes *good* about him and benefits him.
And you wouldn't be offended if someone who had been arguing with you on
COLA, on your site, trying to get heard in IRC then improved your work?
You really saying this would not wind you up? Come on.
If someone wants to go to <http://trw.gallopinginsanity.com> and note where
my work is bad, by all means they can. I have made it clear I am open to
comments.
Post by Goblin
Post by Snit
But it is a point I would like you to keep in mind the next time RonB or
another "advocate" claims GIMP is a good replacement for Photoshop or that
Photoshop is only a benefit in niche cases. This is clearly not the case.
But Michael, Its an opinion.
I am not talking about mere opinions... I am talking about demonstrable
evidence. And I demonstrated some. But, sure, if there is counter evidence
I am open to it.

I mean, I can have the opinion that the sun goes around the Earth... and
that is fine. But if I express that you better believe people will show
counter evidence.
Post by Goblin
Personally I have views on Apple products which are very different to yours.
They are opinions and haven't been appropriate to bring up here due to not
being relevant.
Where views on OSS is relevant. From what you have said, though, I think
our views on Apple products are actually pretty close. I am open to hearing
your thoughts - as off topic as they are (it will be talking about software
and you can show how other packages serve those needs better - presumably
OSS ones... so I think it is fine for COLA).
Post by Goblin
In a forum where OSS is discussed and advocated, what do you expect to
find? and who do you think hears your counter? Other OSS advocates. If
you are on a mission to remove what you percieve as FUD about Photoshop
v Gimp, then I would suggest you do that in a forum where the mainstream
read...
Again: I doubt people in those forums care much about COLA. But if they do
they can read COLA posts here. Why bring COLA discussions to them?

I keep asking you this and you keep avoiding the question.
Post by Goblin
Thats why I suggest this whole Gimp thing was merely another
notch in your campaign against Roy and your opinions on him.
If Roy is in charge of GIMP this is news to me (yes, I know he is not). I
do not see the connection.
Post by Goblin
Ironically this would have all been forgotten if you hadn't repeatedly brought
it up, over and over and over again.
I brought up the images *today*. It is not like it has been a common theme!
The discussions on GIMP, however, have gone on a lot longer than that.
Post by Goblin
And even if you have a point, who are you trying to convince? Big Steel?
Frank? As long as you promote Microsoft then they will believe anything you
say.....
Oh, I do not expect people with a cult-like mentality to be convinced - but
it is curious to me to see how much information and data they can twist and
ignore in order to hold on to their beliefs. As I have noted, I find the
psychology of cults and cult-like groups to be fascinating.
Post by Goblin
Can you understand what I'm trying to say? This whole campaign is
unhealthy and its counter-productive....
What "campaign"? To show where RonB and others are wrong about GIMP?
Post by Goblin
If you believe as you said before, that I have been decent to you,
please, just consider this...please.
I am considering it... but I really think you are making false assumptions.
You are focusing on Roy a lot, for example, where I am not.
--
🙈🙉🙊
Goblin
2011-11-13 22:44:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Snit
Oh, I do not expect people with a cult-like mentality to be convinced - but
it is curious to me to see how much information and data they can twist and
ignore in order to hold on to their beliefs. As I have noted, I find the
psychology of cults and cult-like groups to be fascinating.
I'm purposely snipping (and I encourage any interested parties to read
Snits entire post) as its late and I just want to answer this point.

I think you have put your views across as I have mine and others (if
interested) can read it.

I ask Michael for you to read back what I've just quoted. Please.

Curious? You seriously think that is healthy? If, as you suggest there
is a cult here, you think its healthy to spend the time and effort in
posting to people who won't listen and as you say twist?

Come on Michael. If what you say is right, there are thousands of
forums doing that on a number of topics. I can't see myself floating
over to one.... I would guess if you are studying "cults" then your
claims of cola being one (albeit a tech one) is a very bad example of
true cult and you would be better off looking towards ones that step out
of the world of computers in more real world issues.

I don't think you an idiot, I don't think you a fool, thats why I ask
you to ask yourself why you are here if you truly feel the way you do in
the above paragraph.
--
Openbytes the Linux/FOSS Blogazine! - http://www.openbytes.tk
"Cave quid dicis, quando, et cui."
Catch me in #techrights on freenode.net

BytesMedia: www.bytesmedia.co.uk

Email: ***@googlemail.com
Diaspora: https://joindiaspora.com/u/goblin
Identi.ca: identi.ca/openbytes
Twitter: twitter.com/_goblin

Skype: tim.openbytes
Snit
2011-11-13 23:22:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Goblin
Post by Snit
Oh, I do not expect people with a cult-like mentality to be convinced - but
it is curious to me to see how much information and data they can twist and
ignore in order to hold on to their beliefs. As I have noted, I find the
psychology of cults and cult-like groups to be fascinating.
I'm purposely snipping (and I encourage any interested parties to read
Snits entire post) as its late and I just want to answer this point.
I have no problem with that. Heck, I am considering just letting this
thread go - and for me to get to that point it has to be pretty tedious. :)
Post by Goblin
I think you have put your views across as I have mine and others (if
interested) can read it.
I ask Michael for you to read back what I've just quoted. Please.
Curious? You seriously think that is healthy? If, as you suggest there
is a cult here, you think its healthy to spend the time and effort in
posting to people who won't listen and as you say twist?
I do not think everyone in COLA is a part of the cult-like group. The same
can be said with your debating Ender and the like - do you think he will
change his views? At least when I debate I point out evidence and reason
and fact... I do not (generally) sink to the name calling and empty
accusations so often seen in COLA.
Post by Goblin
Come on Michael. If what you say is right, there are thousands of
forums doing that on a number of topics.
I do not follow this. What do you think these forums are doing (or the
people in these forums). If you can find one which is as cult-like as COLA
I would be interested. Again: we are not talking about people agreeing with
each other but about people acting in cult-like ways. I have seen some,
mostly in political forums, which come close. Still, I cannot think of any
that match COLA.
Post by Goblin
I can't see myself floating over to one.... I would guess if you are studying
"cults" then your claims of cola being one (albeit a tech one) is a very bad
example of true cult and you would be better off looking towards ones that
step out of the world of computers in more real world issues.
A little off topic, but bare with me:

In college, many years ago, I took a class on folklore and folk groups. Our
grade was based largely on a single paper where we looked in depth at a folk
group of our choosing. Now folks groups are generally seen as hang little
written heritage, being face-to-face, etc. Online groups interested me,
though, so I did may paper on the Internet Oracle
<http://cgi.cs.indiana.edu/~oracle>. It fit few if any of the
"requirements" to be a folk group - its members were anonymous, all
communication was in writing, there was no shared heritage, etc.

But, to me, it was still a folk group. It had lore and its stories grow,
outsiders were given initiations, etc. All of this was before most had even
heard of the Internet (1991 give or take).

I see the cult-like behavior in much the same light. There is *clearly*
pretty strong cult-like behavior from many in COLA (is anyone really denying
this any more). But it is a new type of "cult"... one where there is no
face to face meeting. It interests me.
Post by Goblin
I don't think you an idiot, I don't think you a fool, thats why I ask
you to ask yourself why you are here if you truly feel the way you do in
the above paragraph.
For much the same reason the Internet Oracle interested me.
--
🙈🙉🙊
Frank The Wank
2011-11-13 22:45:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Snit
Post by Goblin
If you believe as you said before, that I have been decent to you,
please, just consider this...please.
I am considering it... but I really think you are making false assumptions.
You are focusing on Roy a lot, for example, where I am not.
Now there is a surprise :)
He probably has Roy on Skype telling him what to say.
Hah!

He is now attempting the divide and conquer BTW. He probably thinks
u and I are in cahoots like he and Roy are.
We are not.
You keep giving the tool another chance to redeem himself and I say
he's playing with you.
Goblin
2011-11-13 22:53:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Frank The Wank
He is now attempting the divide and conquer BTW. He probably thinks
u and I are in cahoots like he and Roy are.
Er no Frank.... I would expect Michael would rather like to distance
himself from your type of posting...Your nym alone is a good indicator
of what you are here for.

Poor Frank..trying the divide and conquer line again? What is this to
you?... I think I can guess, you sound frightened that two people with
different views can debate...

Sort of ruins your agenda to disrupt doesn't it!

Bless..
--
Openbytes the Linux/FOSS Blogazine! - http://www.openbytes.tk
"Cave quid dicis, quando, et cui."
Catch me in #techrights on freenode.net

BytesMedia: www.bytesmedia.co.uk

Email: ***@googlemail.com
Diaspora: https://joindiaspora.com/u/goblin
Identi.ca: identi.ca/openbytes
Twitter: twitter.com/_goblin

Skype: tim.openbytes
Snit
2011-11-14 03:17:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Goblin
Post by Frank The Wank
He is now attempting the divide and conquer BTW. He probably thinks
u and I are in cahoots like he and Roy are.
Er no Frank.... I would expect Michael would rather like to distance
himself from your type of posting...Your nym alone is a good indicator
of what you are here for.
I tend to ignore people's names... after all, his name is less offensive
than the take off of Hadron's name - which is offensive in itself *and* for
mocking someone else.
--
🙈🙉🙊
Frank The Wank
2011-11-14 03:38:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Snit
Post by Goblin
Post by Frank The Wank
He is now attempting the divide and conquer BTW. He probably thinks
u and I are in cahoots like he and Roy are.
Er no Frank.... I would expect Michael would rather like to distance
himself from your type of posting...Your nym alone is a good indicator
of what you are here for.
I tend to ignore people's names... after all, his name is less offensive
than the take off of Hadron's name - which is offensive in itself *and* for
mocking someone else.
People like the tool tend to lump all that disagree with them into a
single category.
That's their escape from reality.
Just blame it on some prolific troll.
Facts matter not at all.

The real kicker is real names.

So where is the tool's real name?
What is it?

I and others know it already but are waiting for the tool to get
some balls and use it.
We are hoping.
He will be uncloaked shortly should he continue to play his game.
And trust me, he isn't going to enjoy it.


Ask them to prove their claims and they fold like 45 cent cameras.

They can't.
Talk is cheap.
Facts cost money, something the Linux freaks have little of.
Snit
2011-11-13 23:29:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Frank The Wank
Post by Snit
Post by Goblin
If you believe as you said before, that I have been decent to you,
please, just consider this...please.
I am considering it... but I really think you are making false assumptions.
You are focusing on Roy a lot, for example, where I am not.
Now there is a surprise :)
He probably has Roy on Skype telling him what to say.
I see no evidence of this.
Post by Frank The Wank
Hah!
He is now attempting the divide and conquer BTW. He probably thinks
u and I are in cahoots like he and Roy are.
We are not.
You keep giving the tool another chance to redeem himself and I say
he's playing with you.
He may be... but I prefer to trust.
--
🙈🙉🙊
Frank The Wank
2011-11-14 00:19:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Snit
Post by Frank The Wank
Post by Snit
Post by Goblin
If you believe as you said before, that I have been decent to you,
please, just consider this...please.
I am considering it... but I really think you are making false assumptions.
You are focusing on Roy a lot, for example, where I am not.
Now there is a surprise :)
He probably has Roy on Skype telling him what to say.
I see no evidence of this.
I don't either, but I know people and I know how those 2 operate in
tandem. It's like a big game to them.

And since when is evidence ever a necessity when dealing with Roy
and the tool?

Just do what they do and make it up as you go along.
Post by Snit
Post by Frank The Wank
Hah!
He is now attempting the divide and conquer BTW. He probably thinks
u and I are in cahoots like he and Roy are.
We are not.
You keep giving the tool another chance to redeem himself and I say
he's playing with you.
He may be... but I prefer to trust.
I used to be like that.
I gave the tool and Schestowitz the benefit of doubt, I really did
because I actually do agree with *some* of what they say.

Then I got to see them in action and it all became clear as day.

What happened was they expected to dice and slice you on their
techmites show and when it didn't happen they had to figure a way to
squirm out of the fact that you outsmarted them.

The only solution was for Roy to play bad cop and the tool to play
hear no evil, see no evil etc.
It's a little more complex than that, but that's the gist of it.
Snit
2011-11-14 00:34:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Frank The Wank
Post by Snit
Post by Frank The Wank
Hah!
He is now attempting the divide and conquer BTW. He probably thinks
u and I are in cahoots like he and Roy are.
We are not.
You keep giving the tool another chance to redeem himself and I say
he's playing with you.
He may be... but I prefer to trust.
I used to be like that.
I gave the tool and Schestowitz the benefit of doubt, I really did
because I actually do agree with *some* of what they say.
Then I got to see them in action and it all became clear as day.
Well, when Roy first started lying about my views, after the show, I gave
him the benefit of the doubt. He proved me wrong... and I did learn from
that.

Goblin has not "broken trust" in that way however. He did react strongly to
something in a way I do not really understand, and I think if I was to go
back and dig through his words I could find places where he said some things
he might not say now, but so be it. In my mind it is done and over with.
Post by Frank The Wank
What happened was they expected to dice and slice you on their
techmites show and when it didn't happen they had to figure a way to
squirm out of the fact that you outsmarted them.
I think that is more true of Roy... and even then, Goblin might be right
that had I just let his lies go he might have had me on the show again.
And, I admit, I think it would be more fun to get his reaction on air than
in COLA. Frankly I was being very fair to him to tell him my concerns and
give him time to prepare. His "preparation" was to run... knowing he could
not back his claims.
Post by Frank The Wank
The only solution was for Roy to play bad cop and the tool to play
hear no evil, see no evil etc.
It's a little more complex than that, but that's the gist of it.
Could be... but I am not going to accuse people of things I have no strong
evidence of.
--
🙈🙉🙊
Frank The Wank
2011-11-14 00:58:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Snit
Post by Frank The Wank
I used to be like that.
I gave the tool and Schestowitz the benefit of doubt, I really did
because I actually do agree with *some* of what they say.
Then I got to see them in action and it all became clear as day.
Well, when Roy first started lying about my views, after the show, I gave
him the benefit of the doubt. He proved me wrong... and I did learn from
that.
Goblin has not "broken trust" in that way however. He did react strongly to
something in a way I do not really understand, and I think if I was to go
back and dig through his words I could find places where he said some things
he might not say now, but so be it. In my mind it is done and over with.
The fact the tool does not call Roy Schestowitz on his lying says it
all.
The "your a man fight your own battles" doesn't wash.

There is nothing more to say about it.
That says it all.

If the tool was really an honest, free thinking spirit like he
pretends to be, hanging around with Schestowitz would make him sick.

Stop being so blind to this.
You are being played with the oldest routine in the book. Good cop
bad cop.
Snit
2011-11-14 02:05:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Frank The Wank
Post by Snit
Post by Frank The Wank
I used to be like that.
I gave the tool and Schestowitz the benefit of doubt, I really did
because I actually do agree with *some* of what they say.
Then I got to see them in action and it all became clear as day.
Well, when Roy first started lying about my views, after the show, I gave
him the benefit of the doubt. He proved me wrong... and I did learn from
that.
Goblin has not "broken trust" in that way however. He did react strongly to
something in a way I do not really understand, and I think if I was to go
back and dig through his words I could find places where he said some things
he might not say now, but so be it. In my mind it is done and over with.
The fact the tool does not call Roy Schestowitz on his lying says it
all.
The "your a man fight your own battles" doesn't wash.
A couple of thoughts on this:

1) I do not think he owes me taking a side.

2) But! To some extent he is taking a side - he is claiming I "attacked"
Roy, when what I did was react to Roy's attacks against me. I am giving him
the benefit of the doubt that he is means Roy and I were "fighting" but he
merely thinks I pushed things past the time I should have let them go.
Still, Roy's narrative is that *reaction* to an aggressor is fine (he thinks
reacting to what he sees as Apple's "aggression" is fine - even doing the
same "wrong" as they did (reacting to law suits with law suits)). I did not
react to Roy's lying with lying, but I did point out his lies repeatedly and
did repeatedly ask him to defend his accusations. While this can be seen as
wrong, I was truly curious where Roy got his mistaken idea, and Roy did
finally admit he based his lie on the text I thought he did. So I learned
what I wanted to learn.

Still, Goblin *might* be right that had I just let Roy's lies go I could
have asked him about them on his show. I admit that would have been more
satisfying, at least in some ways. Still, I am happy I put my cards on the
table and let Roy know what I was going to ask him so he could prepare. It
is just a shame Roy's "preparation" was to run.

And here is an interesting thought: maybe Goblin is frustrated that I laid
my cards on the table and reacted so strongly to Roy's attacks because
Goblin actually wanted me to question Roy on the air where Roy could not so
easily run. I am not suggesting this *is* the case, but Goblin's stated
frustration is consistent with this idea - and it would imply that Goblin
wanted to see Roy squirm and be unable to do anything but make a fool of
himself on the show. To be clear: Goblin has not given me any reason to
think this is the case - but it *might* be; there is nothing that shows this
idea to be wrong. And, if right, Goblin would not want it to be known - so
he could not publicly acknowledge it.

Interesting conundrum. :)
Post by Frank The Wank
There is nothing more to say about it.
That says it all.
If the tool was really an honest, free thinking spirit like he
pretends to be, hanging around with Schestowitz would make him sick.
Stop being so blind to this.
You are being played with the oldest routine in the book. Good cop
bad cop.
--
🙈🙉🙊
Frank The Wank
2011-11-14 02:33:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Snit
1) I do not think he owes me taking a side.
Good, because he never will.
Stop giving him a pass.
Post by Snit
2) But! To some extent he is taking a side - he is claiming I "attacked"
Roy, when what I did was react to Roy's attacks against me.
Of course he is.
The tool has allegiance to Roy, not you.
He is playing you.
Post by Snit
I am giving him
the benefit of the doubt that he is means Roy and I were "fighting" but he
merely thinks I pushed things past the time I should have let them go.
Huge mistake.
That is part of the lukewarm, good cop bad cop routine he plays.
Don't fall for it.
Post by Snit
Still, Roy's narrative is that *reaction* to an aggressor is fine (he thinks
reacting to what he sees as Apple's "aggression" is fine - even doing the
same "wrong" as they did (reacting to law suits with law suits)). I did not
react to Roy's lying with lying, but I did point out his lies repeatedly and
did repeatedly ask him to defend his accusations. While this can be seen as
wrong, I was truly curious where Roy got his mistaken idea, and Roy did
finally admit he based his lie on the text I thought he did. So I learned
what I wanted to learn.
Roy Schestowitz does not like others pointing out his errors. I call
them errors because I'm not sure if he is lying on purpose or if he
is just ignorant.

At any rate, Roy has his water boys do his dirty work for him.
It's been documented.
The tool is one of Roy's water boys.
Post by Snit
Still, Goblin *might* be right that had I just let Roy's lies go I could
have asked him about them on his show.
Of course he does.
He knows full well you will never be let on another show.
Roy has laid down the law.
The tool just follows along.
To be clear: Goblin has not given me any reason to
Post by Snit
think this is the case - but it *might* be; there is nothing that shows this
idea to be wrong. And, if right, Goblin would not want it to be known - so
he could not publicly acknowledge it.
Interesting conundrum. :)
The tools knows full well what is going on.
Don't be fooled.

You make the false assumption that the tool and Roy operate
independently.
They don't.
They are one and the same.

The tool has been assigned the task of taking the flack from people
like you so Roy can remain squeaky clean.

Think about it.
Is there any other conclusion?

Roy has an uncanny ability to trick weak minded people, like the
tool, into doing his will.
It's quite interesting in fact.
Chris Ahlstrom
2011-11-13 22:33:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Goblin
Post by Snit
You also snipped all content about what is, to me, the much more interesting
topic: GIMP and how it is portrayed in COLA.
And you've made no mention about the points I raise about COLA. As I say
if opinion that GIMP is far better than Photoshop offends you so much, I
would suggest you get yourself over to the GIMP forums, there's loads of
it there and its in a far more mainstream environment than Usenet/cola...
Like I say, I think we both know though that this is more about Roy than
it is about Gimp, otherwise we would see you champion of Photoshop in
every forum where people (rightly or wrongly) claim that Gimp is equal
to or better than Photoshop.
Personally I would THINK Photoshop better, but I (and like many people)
am not prepared to pay for a software thats not written for Linux for
features that I would never use.
Go ahead, I'll even agree that you are correct and Photoshop (in the
example you worked on) is better than GIMP....So what? Does that make
you feel better? Does that change anything? End of debate..Its no big deal.
GIMP, even with all the third-party plug-ins, is surely not as powerful
as the expensive ($200 even for the "academic" price) Photoshop, but
GIMP is very powerful. It's a no-brainer for most Linux users.

I know a couple people who use GIMP on Windows, too.

Snit sounds to me like he's suffering from "OSS envy".
--
If you think before you speak the other guy gets his joke in first.
Goblin
2011-11-13 22:51:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chris Ahlstrom
Post by Goblin
Post by Snit
You also snipped all content about what is, to me, the much more interesting
topic: GIMP and how it is portrayed in COLA.
And you've made no mention about the points I raise about COLA. As I say
if opinion that GIMP is far better than Photoshop offends you so much, I
would suggest you get yourself over to the GIMP forums, there's loads of
it there and its in a far more mainstream environment than Usenet/cola...
Like I say, I think we both know though that this is more about Roy than
it is about Gimp, otherwise we would see you champion of Photoshop in
every forum where people (rightly or wrongly) claim that Gimp is equal
to or better than Photoshop.
Personally I would THINK Photoshop better, but I (and like many people)
am not prepared to pay for a software thats not written for Linux for
features that I would never use.
Go ahead, I'll even agree that you are correct and Photoshop (in the
example you worked on) is better than GIMP....So what? Does that make
you feel better? Does that change anything? End of debate..Its no big deal.
GIMP, even with all the third-party plug-ins, is surely not as powerful
as the expensive ($200 even for the "academic" price) Photoshop, but
GIMP is very powerful. It's a no-brainer for most Linux users.
I know a couple people who use GIMP on Windows, too.
Snit sounds to me like he's suffering from "OSS envy".
I don't see it as a big deal anyway.. If someone here claims GIMP is
better, fine...If someone claims Photoshop is better, then fine too....
It won't be until I actually need the features of both that I'll have an
opinion and when/if I do, I'll choose the best for me regardless of what
others say.... I think thats what everyone else would do too.
--
Openbytes the Linux/FOSS Blogazine! - http://www.openbytes.tk
"Cave quid dicis, quando, et cui."
Catch me in #techrights on freenode.net

BytesMedia: www.bytesmedia.co.uk

Email: ***@googlemail.com
Diaspora: https://joindiaspora.com/u/goblin
Identi.ca: identi.ca/openbytes
Twitter: twitter.com/_goblin

Skype: tim.openbytes
Snit
2011-11-13 23:26:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Goblin
Post by Chris Ahlstrom
Post by Goblin
Go ahead, I'll even agree that you are correct and Photoshop (in the
example you worked on) is better than GIMP....So what? Does that make
you feel better? Does that change anything? End of debate..Its no big deal.
GIMP, even with all the third-party plug-ins, is surely not as powerful
as the expensive ($200 even for the "academic" price) Photoshop, but
GIMP is very powerful. It's a no-brainer for most Linux users.
I know a couple people who use GIMP on Windows, too.
Snit sounds to me like he's suffering from "OSS envy".
I don't see it as a big deal anyway.. If someone here claims GIMP is
better, fine...If someone claims Photoshop is better, then fine too....
It won't be until I actually need the features of both that I'll have an
opinion and when/if I do, I'll choose the best for me regardless of what
others say.... I think thats what everyone else would do too.
Agreed. Chris Ahlstrom is just making things up about my views (his claims
about my having "envy"). His claim does not even make sense.
--
🙈🙉🙊
Snit
2011-11-13 23:27:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chris Ahlstrom
Post by Goblin
Post by Snit
You also snipped all content about what is, to me, the much more interesting
topic: GIMP and how it is portrayed in COLA.
And you've made no mention about the points I raise about COLA. As I say
if opinion that GIMP is far better than Photoshop offends you so much, I
would suggest you get yourself over to the GIMP forums, there's loads of
it there and its in a far more mainstream environment than Usenet/cola...
Like I say, I think we both know though that this is more about Roy than
it is about Gimp, otherwise we would see you champion of Photoshop in
every forum where people (rightly or wrongly) claim that Gimp is equal
to or better than Photoshop.
Personally I would THINK Photoshop better, but I (and like many people)
am not prepared to pay for a software thats not written for Linux for
features that I would never use.
Go ahead, I'll even agree that you are correct and Photoshop (in the
example you worked on) is better than GIMP....So what? Does that make
you feel better? Does that change anything? End of debate..Its no big deal.
GIMP, even with all the third-party plug-ins, is surely not as powerful
as the expensive ($200 even for the "academic" price) Photoshop, but
GIMP is very powerful. It's a no-brainer for most Linux users.
No argument here. It is a great program - but that is not what I am arguing
against.
Post by Chris Ahlstrom
I know a couple people who use GIMP on Windows, too.
I know I do!
Post by Chris Ahlstrom
Snit sounds to me like he's suffering from "OSS envy".
How so? Really... that is just a bizarre claim.

But, so be it... it is not as though I expect you to back your comments.
Nobody else does, either.
--
🙈🙉🙊
Goblin
2011-11-13 21:46:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Snit
I noted, correctly, I have done what you claim I have not. Now, through
snipping, you are making it look as though I claimed I had commented about a
specific person - a claim I never made.
Yes on a few occassions, no dispute at all there. The point was we can
all point out things to challenge that people haven't. Just like you
haven't challenged Big Steel - The point was, again, that it doesn't
make you wrong, it just makes you unable, like everyone here to start
moaning when a specific person isn't challenged just because an
individual thinks they should.

You are right, I haven't challenged Homer, I am right, you haven't
challenged big steel.....see the point? You can't call anyone out
anymore than I, or anyone can.
--
Openbytes the Linux/FOSS Blogazine! - http://www.openbytes.tk
"Cave quid dicis, quando, et cui."
Catch me in #techrights on freenode.net

BytesMedia: www.bytesmedia.co.uk

Email: ***@googlemail.com
Diaspora: https://joindiaspora.com/u/goblin
Identi.ca: identi.ca/openbytes
Twitter: twitter.com/_goblin

Skype: tim.openbytes
Snit
2011-11-13 21:52:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Goblin
Post by Snit
I noted, correctly, I have done what you claim I have not. Now, through
snipping, you are making it look as though I claimed I had commented about a
specific person - a claim I never made.
Yes on a few occassions, no dispute at all there. The point was we can
all point out things to challenge that people haven't. Just like you
haven't challenged Big Steel - The point was, again, that it doesn't
make you wrong, it just makes you unable, like everyone here to start
moaning when a specific person isn't challenged just because an
individual thinks they should.
You are right, I haven't challenged Homer, I am right, you haven't
challenged big steel.....see the point? You can't call anyone out
anymore than I, or anyone can.
I think you are missing my point.
--
🙈🙉🙊
Frank The Wank
2011-11-13 21:59:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Snit
I think you are missing my point.
On purpose so he can send you off arguing HIS points.
And of course it gives him more opportunity to spam his usenet
violating signature all over the place.
Goblin
2011-11-13 22:13:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Frank The Wank
Post by Snit
I think you are missing my point.
On purpose so he can send you off arguing HIS points.
And of course it gives him more opportunity to spam his usenet
violating signature all over the place.
Ah so maybe thats the answer to stop you posting...... Get the COLA
regulars with a sig and some links.......

Thanks frank, you've given me a good idea for a suggestion...
--
Openbytes the Linux/FOSS Blogazine! - http://www.openbytes.tk
"Cave quid dicis, quando, et cui."
Catch me in #techrights on freenode.net

BytesMedia: www.bytesmedia.co.uk

Email: ***@googlemail.com
Diaspora: https://joindiaspora.com/u/goblin
Identi.ca: identi.ca/openbytes
Twitter: twitter.com/_goblin

Skype: tim.openbytes
Chris Ahlstrom
2011-11-13 22:34:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Goblin
Post by Frank The Wank
Post by Snit
I think you are missing my point.
On purpose so he can send you off arguing HIS points.
And of course it gives him more opportunity to spam his usenet
violating signature all over the place.
Ah so maybe thats the answer to stop you posting...... Get the COLA
regulars with a sig and some links.......
Thanks frank, you've given me a good idea for a suggestion...
The first part of the troll's nym is a misnomer. The second part is not.
--
program, n.:
A magic spell cast over a computer allowing it to turn one's input
into error messages. tr.v. To engage in a pastime similar to banging
one's head against a wall, but with fewer opportunities for reward.
Chris Ahlstrom
2011-11-13 22:28:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Goblin
Post by Snit
If Roy had Photoshop or the equal
So then thats not Free Software or Linux's fault...Thats Adobe not
bringing a native Photoshop to Linux and a lack of a viable competitor
to Photoshop on any platform (I assume). People say GIMP is great, but
since I don't really need a photo editing suite, I wouldn't say myself.
Post by Snit
There you can see Roy's, mine (better quality and smaller), and a roll-over
so you can easily see a comparison.
And this is maybe why you have problems with COLA users. What is the
point in your exercise? To show up Roy? To show up Linux? To show up
Gimp or Free Software? What was the point? I'd have hoped you would
have better things to do, now you can maybe see why some may think you
have a somewhat unhealthy obsession with certain people and topics?
Most people would not care... If you can do better in Photoshop, use
photoshop, if you are happy with Gimp, use Gimp.... Would you go around
the whole web correcting peoples images or it just Roys?
Plus, Snit apparently doesn't know about GIMP's "foreground select"
feature.
Post by Goblin
I would suggest to you (as someone who has, to the detriment of himself)
treated you with respect, to let go of this issue with Roy, move on.
Nobody cares either way now.
Exactly.
--
Rule of Feline Frustration:
When your cat has fallen asleep on your lap and looks utterly
content and adorable, you will suddenly have to go to the
bathroom.
Snit
2011-11-13 23:29:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chris Ahlstrom
Post by Goblin
Post by Snit
If Roy had Photoshop or the equal
So then thats not Free Software or Linux's fault...Thats Adobe not
bringing a native Photoshop to Linux and a lack of a viable competitor
to Photoshop on any platform (I assume). People say GIMP is great, but
since I don't really need a photo editing suite, I wouldn't say myself.
Post by Snit
There you can see Roy's, mine (better quality and smaller), and a roll-over
so you can easily see a comparison.
And this is maybe why you have problems with COLA users. What is the
point in your exercise? To show up Roy? To show up Linux? To show up
Gimp or Free Software? What was the point? I'd have hoped you would
have better things to do, now you can maybe see why some may think you
have a somewhat unhealthy obsession with certain people and topics?
Most people would not care... If you can do better in Photoshop, use
photoshop, if you are happy with Gimp, use Gimp.... Would you go around
the whole web correcting peoples images or it just Roys?
Plus, Snit apparently doesn't know about GIMP's "foreground select"
feature.
Incorrect. Are you suggesting that the examples I showed were done by
someone without basic competence in the program?
Post by Chris Ahlstrom
Post by Goblin
I would suggest to you (as someone who has, to the detriment of himself)
treated you with respect, to let go of this issue with Roy, move on.
Nobody cares either way now.
Exactly.
I am not the one focusing on Roy.
--
🙈🙉🙊
TomB
2011-11-14 09:17:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Goblin
Post by Snit
If Roy had Photoshop or the equal
So then thats not Free Software or Linux's fault...Thats Adobe not
bringing a native Photoshop to Linux and a lack of a viable
competitor to Photoshop on any platform (I assume). People say GIMP
is great, but since I don't really need a photo editing suite, I
wouldn't say myself.
The art is in the man, not in the tool.
--
BOFH excuse #280:

Traceroute says that there is a routing problem in the backbone. It's not our problem.
Chris Ahlstrom
2011-11-14 10:58:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by TomB
Post by Goblin
Post by Snit
If Roy had Photoshop or the equal
So then thats not Free Software or Linux's fault...Thats Adobe not
bringing a native Photoshop to Linux and a lack of a viable
competitor to Photoshop on any platform (I assume). People say GIMP
is great, but since I don't really need a photo editing suite, I
wouldn't say myself.
The art is in the man, not in the tool.
Unless, of course, you're using the tool called "Windows" :-D

Welcome back, man.
--
DOS Beer: Requires you to use your own can opener, and requires you to
read the directions carefully before opening the can. Originally only
came in an 8-oz. can, but now comes in a 16-oz. can. However, the can is
divided into 8 compartments of 2 oz. each, which have to be accessed
separately. Soon to be discontinued, although a lot of people are going
to keep drinking it after it's no longer available.
Snit
2011-11-14 15:09:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chris Ahlstrom
Post by TomB
Post by Goblin
Post by Snit
If Roy had Photoshop or the equal
So then thats not Free Software or Linux's fault...Thats Adobe not
bringing a native Photoshop to Linux and a lack of a viable
competitor to Photoshop on any platform (I assume). People say GIMP
is great, but since I don't really need a photo editing suite, I
wouldn't say myself.
The art is in the man, not in the tool.
Unless, of course, you're using the tool called "Windows" :-D
Welcome back, man.
Good example of why TomB's comment was so amazingly hypocritical.
--
🙈🙉🙊
Homer
2011-11-14 11:36:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by TomB
The art is in the man, not in the tool.
True, but then Photoshop isn't a tool, it's a status symbol. It's
also mostly "pirated", then used to do no more than could be
accomplished with legally free (and Free) software.
Snit
2011-11-14 15:08:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by TomB
Post by Goblin
Post by Snit
If Roy had Photoshop or the equal
So then thats not Free Software or Linux's fault...Thats Adobe not
bringing a native Photoshop to Linux and a lack of a viable
competitor to Photoshop on any platform (I assume). People say GIMP
is great, but since I don't really need a photo editing suite, I
wouldn't say myself.
The art is in the man, not in the tool.
I am making a few assumptions:

1) The images were made with the use of GIMP or a similar OSS tool.
2) The person who made the images had basic competence with that tool.

I admit - these are assumptions. Are you making different assumptions?
--
🙈🙉🙊
7
2011-11-12 17:46:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Snit
Post by Homer
Post by 7
Post by RayLopez99
Same reason Apple OS X Lion/Leopard is not Linux.
Isn't appil software a derivative work of open source?
Apple's entire portfolio is a derivative work.
Apple has managed, single handedly, to spread OSS further than any Linux
desktop distro.
By violating the spirit of OSS and suing BSD developers that
contributed the original code that added to their infamy
against OSS with a $40 billion fund to fight it.
Lt Cmdr. Gaston J. Feeblebunny
2011-11-12 19:56:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by 7
Post by Snit
Post by Homer
Post by 7
Post by RayLopez99
Same reason Apple OS X Lion/Leopard is not Linux.
Isn't appil software a derivative work of open source?
Apple's entire portfolio is a derivative work.
Apple has managed, single handedly, to spread OSS further than any Linux
desktop distro.
By violating the spirit of OSS and suing BSD developers that
contributed the original code that added to their infamy
against OSS with a $40 billion fund to fight it.
Classic invective, as expected from someone who lacks a logical argument.
I think that Snit meant *Windows* and Apple contributed to *spread* OSS
further than all Linux desktop distro's put together, don't you think so?,
you ignorant twat?
http://osswin.sourceforge.net/
Chris Ahlstrom
2011-11-12 20:17:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lt Cmdr. Gaston J. Feeblebunny
I think that Snit meant *Windows* and Apple contributed to *spread* OSS
further than all Linux desktop distro's put together, don't you think so?,
you ignorant twat?
http://osswin.sourceforge.net/
Bah, no package manager. Can you say "time sink"?
--
Go slowly to the entertainments of thy friends, but quickly to their
misfortunes.
-- Chilo
Snit
2011-11-12 20:31:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chris Ahlstrom
Post by Lt Cmdr. Gaston J. Feeblebunny
I think that Snit meant *Windows* and Apple contributed to *spread* OSS
further than all Linux desktop distro's put together, don't you think so?,
you ignorant twat?
http://osswin.sourceforge.net/
Bah, no package manager. Can you say "time sink"?
Ah, that invalidates my point.

Not.
--
🙈🙉🙊
Homer
2011-11-12 21:03:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chris Ahlstrom
Post by Lt Cmdr. Gaston J. Feeblebunny
I think that Snit meant *Windows* and Apple contributed to *spread*
OSS further than all Linux desktop distro's put together, don't you
think so?, you ignorant twat?
http://osswin.sourceforge.net/
Bah, no package manager. Can you say "time sink"?
Apple is certainly very good at leeching from Free Software developers,
assimilating their work, stamping their "IP" mark on it, then trying to
claim credit for it.

As for Windows "spreading" Free Software, well duh, it's only installed
without option on nearly every PC sold, so it's kinda hard to avoid. It
would be like boasting that slavery helped spread abolitionism, or that
cancer helped spread chemotherapy. It's hardly a glowing endorsement of
the "spreader".
--
K. | "UNIX is basically a simple operating
http://slated.org | system, but you have to be a genius
Fedora 8 (Werewolf) on šky | to understand the simplicity"
kernel 2.6.31.5, up 173 days | ~ Dennis Ritchie
Snit
2011-11-12 21:57:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Homer
Post by Chris Ahlstrom
Post by Lt Cmdr. Gaston J. Feeblebunny
I think that Snit meant *Windows* and Apple contributed to *spread*
OSS further than all Linux desktop distro's put together, don't you
think so?, you ignorant twat?
http://osswin.sourceforge.net/
Bah, no package manager. Can you say "time sink"?
Apple is certainly very good at leeching from Free Software developers,
assimilating their work, stamping their "IP" mark on it, then trying to
claim credit for it.
Linus Torvalds
-----
I agree that it's driven by selfish reasons, but that's how
all open source code gets written! We all "scratch our own
itches". It's why I started Linux, it's why I started git,
and it's why I am still involved. It's the reason for
everybody to end up in open source, to some degree. So
complaining about the fact that Microsoft picked a selfish
area to work on is just silly. Of course they picked an area
that helps them. That's the point of open source - the
ability to make the code better for your particular needs,
whoever the 'your' in question happens to be.

Does anybody complain when hardware companies write drivers
for the hardware they produce? No. That would be crazy. Does
anybody complain when IBM funds all the POWER development,
and works on enterprise features because they sell into the
enterprise? No. That would be insane.

So the people who complain about Microsoft writing drivers
for their own virtualization model should take a long look in
the mirror and ask themselves why they are being so
hypocritical.
-----

Why is it the COLA "advocates" so often show they do not get the very
concept of open source? Of course Apple uses open source software for
"selfish" reason - to serve their own needs and the needs of their
customers. That is what drives open source!

Seriously, Homer, for someone who focuses so much energy on open source, you
really do not get it at all.
Post by Homer
As for Windows "spreading" Free Software, well duh, it's only installed
without option on nearly every PC sold, so it's kinda hard to avoid. It
would be like boasting that slavery helped spread abolitionism, or that
cancer helped spread chemotherapy. It's hardly a glowing endorsement of
the "spreader".
What? Slavery spreading abolitionism? Cancer spreading chemotherapy?

What the heck are you babbling about?
--
🙈🙉🙊
Clogwog
2011-11-13 10:20:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Snit
Post by Homer
Post by Chris Ahlstrom
Post by Lt Cmdr. Gaston J. Feeblebunny
I think that Snit meant *Windows* and Apple contributed to *spread*
OSS further than all Linux desktop distro's put together, don't you
think so?, you ignorant twat?
http://osswin.sourceforge.net/
Bah, no package manager. Can you say "time sink"?
Apple is certainly very good at leeching from Free Software developers,
assimilating their work, stamping their "IP" mark on it, then trying to
claim credit for it.
Linus Torvalds
-----
I agree that it's driven by selfish reasons, but that's how
all open source code gets written! We all "scratch our own
itches". It's why I started Linux, it's why I started git,
and it's why I am still involved. It's the reason for
everybody to end up in open source, to some degree. So
complaining about the fact that Microsoft picked a selfish
area to work on is just silly. Of course they picked an area
that helps them. That's the point of open source - the
ability to make the code better for your particular needs,
whoever the 'your' in question happens to be.
Does anybody complain when hardware companies write drivers
for the hardware they produce? No. That would be crazy. Does
anybody complain when IBM funds all the POWER development,
and works on enterprise features because they sell into the
enterprise? No. That would be insane.
So the people who complain about Microsoft writing drivers
for their own virtualization model should take a long look in
the mirror and ask themselves why they are being so
hypocritical.
-----
Why is it the COLA "advocates" so often show they do not get the very
concept of open source? Of course Apple uses open source software for
"selfish" reason - to serve their own needs and the needs of their
customers. That is what drives open source!
Seriously, Homer, for someone who focuses so much energy on open source, you
really do not get it at all.
Post by Homer
As for Windows "spreading" Free Software, well duh, it's only installed
without option on nearly every PC sold, so it's kinda hard to avoid. It
would be like boasting that slavery helped spread abolitionism, or that
cancer helped spread chemotherapy. It's hardly a glowing endorsement of
the "spreader".
What? Slavery spreading abolitionism? Cancer spreading chemotherapy?
What the heck are you babbling about?
Without Apple / Windows open source would be of negligible importance and
the community would have died 10 years ago!
Chris Ahlstrom
2011-11-13 12:50:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Clogwog
Without Apple / Windows open source would be of negligible importance and
the community would have died 10 years ago!
Bullshit. Believe it or not, the industry started out open-source,
until Microsoft and Apple came along. They fought open-source at worst,
and only promoted it (sort of) when it gained popularity.

What truly got the ball rolling (and this should be self-evident) is
the GPL, which said "if you want to play, you have to share".

When I think back to about 15 years ago, when I knew almost nothing
about GNU or Linux, and how confining that Windows 3.1 world was, I
shudder.

Next you'll be echoing the DFS idiot in claiming that, without Windows,
we wouldn't be posting here.
--
Just because your doctor has a name for your condition doesn't mean he
knows what it is.
Frank The Wank
2011-11-13 13:52:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chris Ahlstrom
What truly got the ball rolling (and this should be self-evident) is
the GPL, which said "if you want to play, you have to share".
What truly got the ball rolling is that companies figured out they
could get all this free code and incorporate it into their devices,
like televisions and so forth. This way they could keep their costs
low but still maintain even greater profits for their executives.

They don't give a shit about open source other than the profit
margin.
Frank The Wank
2011-11-12 22:29:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chris Ahlstrom
Post by Lt Cmdr. Gaston J. Feeblebunny
I think that Snit meant *Windows* and Apple contributed to *spread* OSS
further than all Linux desktop distro's put together, don't you think so?,
you ignorant twat?
http://osswin.sourceforge.net/
Bah, no package manager. Can you say "time sink"?
Yea, you need a package manager with Linux to keep track of those
'598' different text editors, desktop GUIS, printer utilities, audio
systems and other stuff Linux seems to have a duplicity of.

Meanwhile the Mac user has access to some of the best software on
the planet.

No wonder Linux users are so miserable.
I'd be miserable too if I was stuck with the typical Linux program.

Using Linux is like being the only kid on the street who has a skate
board with metal wheels.
Clogwog
2011-11-13 10:28:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chris Ahlstrom
Post by Lt Cmdr. Gaston J. Feeblebunny
I think that Snit meant *Windows* and Apple contributed to *spread* OSS
further than all Linux desktop distro's put together, don't you think so?,
you ignorant twat?
http://osswin.sourceforge.net/
Bah, no package manager. Can you say "time sink"?
You're just sucking up to the likes of Homer again, don't expect a "reward",
the COLA loons don't chuck bones for nothing.
Osswin offers great software, a lot of them are used by tens of millions of
Windows users, despite your whining about a silly package manager.
Chris Ahlstrom
2011-11-13 12:53:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Clogwog
Post by Chris Ahlstrom
Post by Lt Cmdr. Gaston J. Feeblebunny
I think that Snit meant *Windows* and Apple contributed to *spread* OSS
further than all Linux desktop distro's put together, don't you think so?,
you ignorant twat?
http://osswin.sourceforge.net/
Bah, no package manager. Can you say "time sink"?
You're just sucking up to the likes of Homer again, don't expect a "reward",
the COLA loons don't chuck bones for nothing.
Osswin offers great software, a lot of them are used by tens of millions of
Windows users, despite your whining about a silly package manager.
It's not whining, nor is it sucking up, kiddo.

You should be telling those poor Windows users, dicking around
installing packages one at a time, that there is a far better way.
--
"Protozoa are small, and bacteria are small, but viruses are smaller
than the both put together."
Frank The Wank
2011-11-13 13:55:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chris Ahlstrom
Post by Clogwog
You're just sucking up to the likes of Homer again, don't expect a "reward",
the COLA loons don't chuck bones for nothing.
Osswin offers great software, a lot of them are used by tens of millions of
Windows users, despite your whining about a silly package manager.
It's not whining, nor is it sucking up, kiddo.
You should be telling those poor Windows users, dicking around
installing packages one at a time, that there is a far better way.
That's just the thing, Windows users don't spend their time like
that.
That's what Linux users do. Frothing over the next new distribution.
Updating to the next 0.xx-02 from 0.xx-01 version.

Windows and Mac users are too busy using their quality, best of
breed applications and don't have to be bothered with the flavor of
the moment like Linux users seem to be obsessed with.
Snit
2011-11-12 21:58:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by 7
Post by Snit
Post by Homer
Post by 7
Post by RayLopez99
Same reason Apple OS X Lion/Leopard is not Linux.
Isn't appil software a derivative work of open source?
Apple's entire portfolio is a derivative work.
Apple has managed, single handedly, to spread OSS further than any Linux
desktop distro.
By violating the spirit of OSS and suing BSD developers that
contributed the original code that added to their infamy
against OSS with a $40 billion fund to fight it.
Ah, you are going off topic with unsupported accusations. OK.
--
🙈🙉🙊
chris
2011-11-12 15:12:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by RayLopez99
Same reason Apple OS X Lion/Leopard is not Linux.
Wrong.
I have an Android device right in front of me and it clearly tells me that
it is running a linux kernel 2.6.35.7-gf5f63ef.

So this is obviously different from Mac OS which is not a linux kernel, but
a BSD-like kernel.
Post by RayLopez99
Same reason Unix is
not Linux.
Still wrong. This phone here runs a linux kernel. Unixes do not contain
linux kernels.
Post by RayLopez99
More importantly, Android is a crippled OS designed to run on crippled
hardware.
Could you please tell me in what way the hardware in the phone I have here
is "crippled"?
I ask because I know that it is fully capable of running for example Ubuntu.

Here is a picture of the allegedly crippled hardware running a desktop
operating system:
<http://attachments.xda-
developers.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=485836&d=1294678775>

In the unlikely case that you refer to most graphics chips only having
proprietary drivers, then I would agree: That is crippled.

Lastly, you are right when you say that android is designed to run
specifically on tablets and phones. If you insist calling a specific purpose
variant crippled for being a specific purpose variant, I can't really argue
with that. Apart from that, Android works just fine on x86 hardware as the
android x86 project shows.
Post by RayLopez99
By contrast, Windows Metro will
By the way: You may have noticed that you are talking about a product that
only a developer preview exists yet (which does NOT run on ARM yet)?

Would you object if I called this a troll tactic:
Comparing an Operating System that has been around for years with one that
isn't even released, yet already claiming that the soon to be released is
better?
Post by RayLopez99
run seamlessly on tablets as well as
PCs with nary a modification, when it comes out late next year. Stay
tuned.
Have fun staying tuned. Meanwhile I enjoy using this android phone I have
here.
Post by RayLopez99
RL
I would be embarrassed to sign such a post where basically nothing is
correct, let alone insightful.
Homer
2011-11-12 16:59:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by chris
Here is a picture of the allegedly crippled hardware running a desktop
<http://attachments.xda-developers.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=485836&d=1294678775>
That's the VNC X-forwarding method. There's also a native X server here:

http://androix.org
https://github.com/webbbn/androix-xserver

The result is a /full/ GNU/Linux distro running and displaying
/natively/ on your Android device, complete with the same set of tens of
thousands of applications and games that run on "desktop" GNU/Linux.
It's not a "phone OS" like Windows 8/ARM, which is basically just "Phone
7" with a version bump, completely different to, and incompatible with,
desktop Windows, and therefore incapable of running any of its software.

Free Software wins again.

[quote]
Sinofsky: No x86 legacy apps on Windows 8 for ARM
The short version: your existing applications are toast

Written by Gareth Halfacree on 16 September, 2011

Microsoft has confirmed that which we all knew, but had hoped against:
the ARM version of Windows 8 won't be able to run your existing Windows
applications.

The news that Windows 8 would be developed for both the traditional x86
instruction set - as used by chip giants Intel, AMD, Via, and others -
and the RISC-based ARM instruction set - as used by dozens of ARM
licensees to make low-power mobile-centric processors - was welcomed by
many as heralding a new dawn in portable computing.

The introduction of Windows 8 for ARM, it was argued, would bring about
a revolution in netbooks and laptops, where low-power chips would power
the full Windows 8 experience on cheap hardware with all-day battery
life.

Those who know about how software operates were less convinced: a shift
in architecture in the operation system requires the same shift in
architecture for client applications. Put simply: the ARM version of
Windows won't run your x86 software, including browsers, office suites,
games, and security tools.

It was hoped that Microsoft, which has previously been silent on the
issue of compatibility, was hiding an ace up its sleeve. When Apple made
the move from the PowerPC architecture to x86, it had a tool made called
Rosetta which offered a compatibility layer to legacy apps, allowing
them to run on the new architecture. Although no such practical
x86-to-ARM compatibility layer exists at present, the introduction of
one in Windows 8 would solve the problem handily.

Sadly, that dream has been shattered. "We've been very clear since the
very first CES demos and forward that the ARM product won't run any x86
applications," Windows Team head Steven Sinofsky told analysts at a
meeting this week, with the very requirement for such a statement giving
lie to his claims of clarity.
[/quote]

http://www.thinq.co.uk/2011/9/16/sinofsky-confirms-windows-8-arm-legacy-issues

Of course, Sweaty already let this (multiple, incompatible versions of
"Windows") slip earlier this year:

[quote]
During remarks at a developers conference in Japan on May 23, Microsoft
CEO Steve Ballmer referred to the next version of Windows as “Windows
8.” He also said the next generation of Windows systems will be out next
year.

To those not following Microsoft’s Windows saga closely, this may seem
like a “so what” moment. But Microsoft execs have been studiously
avoiding any references to the timing or naming of the next version of
Windows to try to keep the specifics of the product as quiet as
possible.

...

Parsing Ballmer’s words further, it’s interesting he called out Windows
8 slates and tablets as two separate form factors. Last year, Microsoft
was pushing Windows Embedded Compact as its slate operating system,
designed for devices that were more about consumption than creation….

...

Update: OK, believe it or not, the “official” response is Ballmer’s
statement isn’t what it seems to be… Sent from a Microsoft spokesman
earlier tonight:

“It appears there was a misstatement. We are eagerly awaiting the next
generation of Windows 7 hardware that will be available in the coming
fiscal year. To date, we have yet to formally announce any timing or
naming for the next version of Windows.”
[/quote]

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/microsoft/microsofts-ballmer-says-next-gen-windows-systems-due-in-2012/9515

Clearly Vole wants to obfuscate these incompatibilities as much as
possible, because if consumers fully appreciated that Windows 8/ARM is
just "Tiles 7.5", it'd end up floundering at <1%, just like "Tiles 7".
Post by chris
RL
I would be embarrassed to sign such a post where basically nothing is
correct, let alone insightful.
It's Dopez. Stupidity is his trademark.
--
K. | "UNIX is basically a simple operating
http://slated.org | system, but you have to be a genius
Fedora 8 (Werewolf) on šky | to understand the simplicity"
kernel 2.6.31.5, up 173 days | ~ Dennis Ritchie
chris
2011-11-12 17:30:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by chris
Here is a picture of the allegedly crippled hardware running a desktop
<http://attachments.xda-
developers.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=485836&d=1294678775>
Nope, it's a native Ubuntu. Here is the thread the picture is from:
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?p=10486278

It is using the fbdev X driver.

Here is a rather old video of another allegedly crippled hardware (could use
a little tweaking to be better usable):

...
Chris Ahlstrom
2011-11-12 19:58:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Homer
Clearly Vole wants to obfuscate these incompatibilities as much as
possible, because if consumers fully appreciated that Windows 8/ARM is
just "Tiles 7.5", it'd end up floundering at <1%, just like "Tiles 7".
===========

Apt.
--
mixed emotions:
Watching a bus-load of lawyers plunge off a cliff.
With five empty seats.
RonB
2011-11-12 21:04:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by chris
Wrong.
I have an Android device right in front of me and it clearly tells me
that it is running a linux kernel 2.6.35.7-gf5f63ef.
Yep. My Motorola XPRT shows Linux kernel 2.6.32.9-g3af8459....

Just tell the trolls, "Nice try, but you're not ready yet. Thanks for
playing."
--
RonB
Registered Linux User #498581
CentOS 5.7 or VectorLinux Deluxe 6.0
or Linux Mint 10
Rex Ballard
2011-11-14 22:59:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by RayLopez99
Same reason Apple OS X Lion/Leopard is not Linux.
Apple's OS/X is based on a BSD core. If you wanted to run BSD or FreeBSD applications on OS/X, you could do so. Furthermore, with the Linux API Binary compatibility library you can run Linux applications without needing a VM.
Post by RayLopez99
Same reason Unix is not Linux.
Linux is a radically different kernel, but it is API compatible with UNIX through compatibility libraries.
Post by RayLopez99
More importantly, Android is a crippled OS designed to run on crippled
hardware.
True. Android is specifically optimized for the hardware on which it is installed. This is to deliberately reduce the risk that someone would pirate the software and run it on other hardware, or that someone would pirate Windows and try to run it on an Android device.

A standard Linux operating system has to probe for thousands of possible drivers and chipsets, decide which modules to load, and then load the needed ones and complete the rest of the reboot.
Post by RayLopez99
By contrast, Windows Metro will run seamlessly on tablets as well as
PCs with nary a modification,
That is not true, because most Android tablets are specifically designed NOT to run Windows. They use ARM chips rather than Intel, they use "System on a chip" configurations rather than Windows chip-sets. The Android system can upgrade the Linux kernel, as well as other applications and libraries, but it's pretty much impossible to run Windows on them.

Windows Tablets are usually Linux ready as well. HP's tablets can boot into WEBOS if you don't want to burn the resources to run Windows.

Microsoft's Tablets require at least 32 Gigabytes of storage, 4 gigabytes of RAM, and a Magnetic drive to do anything useful. This is why an Android Tablet can sell for $179 and weighs around 8-12 ounces. A Windows Tablet, which needs more ram, more storage, more CPU - costs MUCH more and still runs in very limited and crippled mode. Windows 8 seems to be even worse.

Remember what Microsoft did to Netbooks. The production costs for a Linux Netbook using 512 megabytes of RAM, and 16 gig SDHC chip, was able to capture a huge niche market 10-20 million users, with a production cost of under $100 and a sale price of $250. The profits were very good, similar to Apple products.

Then Microsoft came out and pushed the manufacturers to use Windows XP, which wasn't so bad, but increased the disk requirements, requiring a physical hard drive, increased memory requirements, and display resolution, which decreased battery life and significantly increased costs, to about $300 per device, with sale prices at $320, and many going on sale for $260. The only way to make a profit was to get the customer to buy a different antivirus than the one already provided, and buy extended warranty and replacement contracts, which could almost DOUBLE the price of the computer.

When you buy a Windows device, you get the base operating system, antivirus, and some basic software. Then you add Office for $150, Antivirus for $80/year, Games at $50 or more each, Visio for $300, Adobe CS for $1500, and other applications for around $50-$100 each.

When you buy a Linux or Android device, you get the base system and a dozen or so applications, with about 10,000 free Open Source applications, and another 30,000 applications for less than $10 each. The PREMIUM applications sell for around $20-30 each.

Many of the PROFESSIONAL applications for Linux - are designed to be installed on servers, and Linux workstations connect to them as clients. Many can use either Linux or Windows for the UI, but the Linux environment provides things like fully manageable virtual desktop environment with 4, 6, even 8 windows (no limit actually). The display is much more efficient as well, conserving as many pixels as possible for the meaningful information.
Post by RayLopez99
when it comes out late next year. Stay
tuned.
The old Microsoft Refrain.

And We'll ALL GO TO HEAVEN - When the NEXT RELEASE COMES OUT!

http://open4success.com/OpenSource/song.php

Time to add another verse or two!!
Post by RayLopez99
RL
Roy, I always love responding to your posts. You keep the discussions very interesting and even entertaining.
Hadron
2011-11-14 23:56:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rex Ballard
Post by RayLopez99
Same reason Apple OS X Lion/Leopard is not Linux.
Apple's OS/X is based on a BSD core. If you wanted to run BSD or FreeBSD
applications on OS/X, you could do so. Furthermore, with the Linux API Binary
compatibility library you can run Linux applications without needing a VM.
LOL!

Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...