Good Riddance To Miguel de Icaza

From his blog:
“Computing-wise that three week vacation turned out to be very relaxing. Machine would suspend and resume without problem, WiFi just worked, audio did not stop working, I spend three weeks without having to recompile the kernel to adjust this or that, nor fighting the video drivers, or deal with the bizarre and random speed degradation that my ThinkPad suffered.”
see How I ended up with Mac – Miguel de Icaza.

Not only is he whining about non-existent FUD, he hits the fragmentation grenade too. My machines suspend and awaken reliably, and I have a bunch of a wide variety. Wireless is solid in my home and I can see all the neighbours doing their thing, too. Video and sound work too. I use Debian GNU/Linux with XFCE4. It’s solid even with the latest stable kernel.

Some people whine, complain and run away. Decent people make things work. While he was whining others did the work and GNU/Linux thrives on the desktop now whether he knows it or not. Tens of millions of ordinary (non-computer-geek) users are taking up GNU/Linux on the desktop every year and it works for them. To Hell with FUDsters.

In 2009, estimates based on Fedora’s unique IPs hitting their repositories counted 14 million and estimated Ubuntu was getting 24million more. Today, Ubuntu GNU/Linux is huge compared to Fedora yet Fedora has counted 45million unique IPs. GNU/Linux can afford to lose a loud-mouthed whiner. The rest of us will enjoy good, reliable software free of the machinations of Apple and M$.

PS: To celibrate his departure, I booted a virtual machine over the web from Fedora’s servers to give them one more hit. Smooth…

About Robert Pogson

I am a retired teacher in Canada. I taught in the subject areas where I have worked for almost forty years: maths, physics, chemistry and computers. I love hunting, fishing, picking berries and mushrooms, too.
This entry was posted in technology and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

68 Responses to Good Riddance To Miguel de Icaza

  1. Homer wrote, “I’m fighting to not have to pay Microsoft every time I buy a PC from a company that isn’t Microsoft.”

    Amen. Accepting M$’s tax is accepting slavery. There clearly is demand for freedom but the market is corrupted by M$ and “partners”.

  2. Homer says:

    “Der Balrog”: “You’re just a do-gooder of the worst sort, pretending to fight for solving humanity’s problems.”

    No, I’m fighting to not have to pay for something I don’t want, didn’t ask for and will never use. Specifically I’m fighting to not have to pay Microsoft every time I buy a PC from a company that isn’t Microsoft.

    I really don’t believe that’s in any way unreasonable.

    The fact that I wish the same benefits for others is a perfectly natural reaction, or at least it is for anyone with any compassion. Judging by your contemptuous characterisation of such things, I take it then that you have some sort of objection to compassion?

    How would you feel if every time you bought a lawnmower, regardless of the make and model, you were obligated to also pay for an entirely unrelated third-party’s strimmer, which was always the same make and model of strimmer, and regardless of the fact that you don’t even need another strimmer because you already have one?

    Now imagine that was the case with nearly every make and model of lawnmower in nearly every lawnmower shop in the world, and that had been the case for nearly four decades, with no end in sight.

    Now imagine that even the extremely rare lawnmowers that were not “bundled” with that single make and model of strimmer were typically more expensive, despite the fact that they should actually be cheaper because of that fact.

    Now imagine that you discover that the reason these rare “unbundled” lawnmowers are not cheaper is because part of the cost is paid toward the third-party strimmer manufacturer anyway, regardless of whether or not you even receive that strimmer, because the lawnmower is simply a rebranded OEM model where the OEM already paid the “Strimmer Tax”.

    Can you honestly say you wouldn’t see a problem with that, and if you do see a problem with it then why should that principle be any different for PCs?

    “Der Balrog”: “But you only indulge yourself in trivial matters”

    No, it’s only “trivial” in your opinion. What you consider important or unimportant is of no interest to me whatsoever, other than the fact that I find it very curious that you’d want to oppose my seeking redress for my loss, when that should be none of your concern.

    What would you lose, exactly, if I got a refund? And even if I somehow managed to convince every PC retailer in the world to offer a choice of OS with every PC they sell, how would that choice stop you choosing Windows if you wanted it?

    Why are you so opposed to people being given the opportunity to choose something other than Windows, and therefore not have to pay for something they don’t want? Are you afraid they might not choose Windows? Why would you be afraid of that, if you’re so confident that they’d nearly all choose Windows anyway?

    Your opposition to my problem is very curious indeed.

    Do you represent your own interests, or those of Microsoft?

    “Der Balrog”: “Stealing? You’re giving them your money willingly.”

    No, I’m giving a PC retailer my money willingly, not Microsoft. The bit “bundled” by Microsoft is not even sold, it’s “licensed”, and I don’t even have permission to use it at all until after I formally “agree” to this “license” … which is after the Contract of Sale agreed with the PC retailer. If I don’t agree to this extraneous, unsolicited, post-sale, third-party offer then I shouldn’t have to pay for it. Period.

    But in practice, it seems my only recourse is a risky, expensive, lengthy court battle.

    Why should I have to do that just to get a refund for something I didn’t ask for, don’t want, will never use, and at no point ever agreed to?

    That’s theft, pure and simple. I want my money back.

    “Der Balrog”: “Do you also complain about not being able to install the OS of your choice on the myriad of electronical devices which in principle are computers, even full-fledged PCs often? … By the way, do Android smartphones give me a choice? In the store, I mean.”

    This is about what I have to pay for, not what I can or cannot install. This is a simple consumer rights issue, nothing more.

    Android is Free Software, in terms of both sources and cost, so I simply don’t care whether or not it’s “bundled”, because either way I don’t have to pay for it. The same is true of the (largely Linux or BSD based) software running on “Smart” devices like TVs, and other electronic equipment.

    “Der Balrog”: “Dr Loser has never made it a secret that he’s working (freelance?) for Microsoft, as far as I recall. This even came up way back on LHB.”

    I have no idea what “LHB” is, nor I suspect would any other casual reader of this blog. Like me, all they see is an pseudonymous poster defending Microsoft.

    “Der Balrog”: “But then — what does it matter? He doesn’t speak on behalf of Microsoft.”

    It matters because it’s dishonest, because he has an undisclosed conflict of interests that makes his opinion untrustworthy, and is therefore not representative of an impartial observer, but may in fact be a clandestine representation made directly on behalf of the company he works for. Or in the vernacular: he’s a shill astroturfing for his employer.

    This is exactly why column writers are required to provide a disclaimer if they work for or on behalf of any company they’re discussing, and why “sponsored articles” must be clearly marked as an advert (in the UK, at least) under ASA regulations, even if they’re only generally promoting a company, not just a specific product.

    “Der Balrog”: “Maybe you want to point out concrete examples where Dr Loser astroturfs”

    The mere presence of a Microsoft employee, posting using an anonymous pseudonym in a blog that criticises Microsoft, is the only “concrete example” that’s necessary, as it’s self-evident.

    “Der Balrog”: “specifically where he carries out underhanded advertising for Microsoft’s products which can be labeled as such according to the EU directive you indirectly cited.”

    Defending a company and its products from criticism is also an act of promoting that company and its products. If the person doing that promotion is an employee of the company, then that is astroturfing.

    It’s not a difficult concept.

    “Der Balrog”: “If you want a Windows-free PC you can buy it.”

    My choices are artificially limited, and it’s a severe limitation, not a trivial one, because it’s a near universal condition and, as I already stated, even those supposedly “Windows-free” PCs are invariably already Windows-Tax paid before being rebranded, so one way or another I must pay Microsoft, even if I never use any of its products.

    The law does not require a monopoly to be total in order for it to be considered an antitrust violation, it merely has to be sufficiently dominant that it causes a severe limitation of choice.

    There’s nothing unreasonable about my complaint. I’m not demanding the sale of some low-volume product that retailers are unwilling to sell. I simply expect to not have to pay for an additional product that I don’t want.

    There is no rational or justifiable reason to force PC customers to pay for the OS if they don’t want it, even if it turns out that only a tiny number of people don’t want it. Give customers an actual choice for a change, and let’s find out exactly what they want. Forcing them to pay for an additional, third-party “bundle” they don’t want is totally unnecessary and morally wrong.

    “Der Balrog”: “To really dumb it down: if people can operate Google and YouTube, you think they’re unable to find and download a Linux distribution?”

    Yes, that is really dumbed-down, so dumb in fact that it completely misses the point. Downloading a GNU/Linux distro after I’ve already been forced to pay for Windows, won’t magically secure a Windows-Tax refund.

    “Der Balrog”: “And here’s a novel idea: why doesn’t somebody make a business out of selling computers with Linux pre-installed!”

    This is why:

    [quote]
    Gateway also faulted another provision of the new licensing agreement, which requires PC makers to pay a Windows royalty on every PC shipped, even if it didn’t include Windows.
    [/quote]

    http://news.cnet.com/Gateway-exec-Microsoft-too-powerful/2100-1016_3-868413.html

    If the OEM is forced to pay for Windows no matter what, then it has no incentive to install anything else.

    But I don’t want the OEM to install something else, I simply want to have the choice of whether or not to buy Windows.

    Unfortunately the OEM has already paid for a Windows license on every machine it stocks, and Microsoft refuses to issue Windows-Tax refunds to OEMs, so if the OEM issues me with a Windows-Tax refund then it takes the loss, not Microsoft. This is exactly why OEMs are so reluctant to issue Windows-Tax refunds in the first place, and why a lengthy court battle is required to get it.

    Indeed OEMs are explicitly forbidden by Microsoft to even reveal the OEM price of Windows, in their “Business Terms Document for OEM Customers”, which makes a refund impossible under those terms, because naturally that would necessarily reveal the OEM price.

    Microsoft internal document submitted as court evidence, in the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Case No. CL 82311 (Comes v. Microsoft), Plaintiff’s exhibit 9244, Defendant’s exhibit 140 (Highly Confidential):

    http://antitrust.slated.org/www.iowaconsumercase.org/011607/9000/PX09244.pdf

  3. oiaohm says:

    –Yes Linux still uses networking to join huge Numa machines.–

    Please don’t think this is Numa over networking its not. Its just a reality is a Numa machines operate in clusters at times. But clustering is not the perfered operation unless the task support is properly.

  4. oiaohm says:

    Dr Loser –BSD does not support as many processes as Linux.

    So what? When was the requirement to spawn processes all over the place a vital part of “big data processing?”–

    Linux has two memory limits by the way.

    1024GB-8589934592GB Yes some of the NUMA x86 Linux uses needs the 8589934592GB.

    Simple reality you are not doing big data processing at 64G of ram Dr Loser.

    Linux 64bit SMP is 1024 cpu core. Just to be strange Microsoft currently stops at 640 cpu cores. This does not match any hardware limit anywhere. BSD does not support the Large NUMA or full SMP.

    64 bit Numa Linux is 1024+ cpu core. So far no one knows the limit this is not defined by cpu makers. Its defined by what custom south-bridges can do.

    Not all tasks can be split over a cluster. Cluster you have networking lag and issues far larger than any Numa solution.

    Dr Loser
    –Very nearly all of them can, even in “big data processing.”–
    This shows why you are stupid. There is a reason why they cannot be split effectively. Speed of memory transfer between boxes. Networking is too slow you have to wrap on network protocol something.

    In fact most cannot be split over a cluster if you want decent performance Dr Loser.

    A 1024 and larger NUMA linux will compete before a cluster of equal size performing the same task.

    Yes this can be the difference between days and hours.

    Yes Linux still uses networking to join huge Numa machines. Without the means to scale in Numa you have a very poor huge data processor. Also you want in side that Numa the biggest SMP you can.

    As soon as someone says they are doing big data processing and mention Windows or BSD anyone really doing big data processing cracks up laughing because you know if they are doing the same task they plan and simple don’t have the hardware. So they are spending far to much time data processing on the wrong hardware.

    Its just like you Dr Loser thinking 12 developers is a big project.

  5. Der Balrog says:

    Yes, there certainly are, but that doesn’t mean the rest of us have to be psychotics too.

    No, certainly not. You’re just a do-gooder of the worst sort, pretending to fight for solving humanity’s problems. But you only indulge yourself in trivial matters so that you, too, can feel a bit important. That’s the trouble with the internet: every idiot can write something, most have nothing to say. That’s the real price of freedom. Free speech at work.

    That “inconsequential trivia” is my money being stolen, […]

    Stealing? You’re giving them your money willingly. If you do that against your better judgment, then this can’t even be called extortion. But you can rightfully be called an idiot.

    […] my rights being violated and my choices being artificially restricted by anticompetitive business practices […]

    That’s pure bull. Do you also complain about not being able to install the OS of your choice on the myriad of electronical devices which in principle are computers, even full-fledged PCs often?

    And then, to cap it all, it turns out you’re actually a Microsoft employee posting anonymously in defence of his employer’s anticompetitive business practices, so you’re not only a psychotic narcissist, but a shill to boot.

    Dr Loser has never made it a secret that he’s working (freelance?) for Microsoft, as far as I recall. This even came up way back on LHB.

    But then — what does it matter? He doesn’t speak on behalf of Microsoft.

    I’m fairly sure astroturfing is illegal, on both sides of the pond:

    I’m fairly sure you have no clue. On this blog we engage in “meaningful” discussion about the pro-Linux lies and FUD spread by one Mr. Pogson. Maybe you want to point out concrete examples where Dr Loser astroturfs, specifically where he carries out underhanded advertising for Microsoft’s products which can be labeled as such according to the EU directive you indirectly cited. Please, people, provide proof for once.

    So which manufacturer has a global monopoly on optical drives? You have a choice of hundreds of different models of PCs, many of which come with no optical drive at all, and of those that do the drives are made by many different manufacturers.

    I think you very much missed that Dr Loser’s question was a rhetorical one. The point is that nobody’s “stealing” from you. If you despair so much over a certain feature then you’d better not buy the product.

    You have a choice.

    So do you! If you want a Windows-free PC you can buy it. Who gives a damn if it’s not stocked at your local Walmart? You always want choice, but then you’re wailing about people not exercising their choice. Yes! It’s not your choice, it’s theirs. To really dumb it down: if people can operate Google and YouTube, you think they’re unable to find and download a Linux distribution?

    And here’s a novel idea: why doesn’t somebody make a business out of selling computers with Linux pre-installed! That’d be something, wouldn’t it? I spent the better part of one second to come up with this idea.

    Now, how many of those same PCs offer a choice of operating system?

    See above.

    By the way, do Android smartphones give me a choice? In the store, I mean.

    [Useless repetitions cut] because you’re lucky enough to coincidentally want Microsoft’s products, which is perfectly understandable for a Microsoft employee (heck, for all I know you help make those product). What was it Miguel said about “dogfooding”?

    Actually, I think, it’s not really that different with Microsoft employees than with all other people: they use Windows because it’s the OS which sucks least. Allegiance? Not so much.

    Of course, that’s hard to grasp for you, because you don’t understand that if you’re not paid for something you have to make up for this by constructing your very own warped reasoning as to why it’s worth doing what you do (should the “what” not really be something which objectively is seen as good, such as — I don’t know — teaching English or whatever to immigrants). That’s precisely why almost all volunteer Linux advocates are so full of it. There’s simply a constant need of re-assuring oneself that this is “the right thing to do” when you, like Linus Torvalds & Co., don’t have the luxury of actually getting paid for your work. (If you believe that’s bull, read up on Festinger and Carlsmith’s experiment on cognitive dissonance.)

    But just try to be a decent human being for one moment, and consider the possibility that there may be some of us who (incredibly unlikely though it may seem to someone like you) don’t want Windows, but who do want a PC […]

    Again, you can do that. Now. Right now. Really, you can.

    And I must ask this again, too: in which store can I get Android smartphones without Android? The situation really is not different after all, or is it? You’ve got small, cheap computers — but they only come with Android. Smells like a “monopoly” to me.

  6. Homer says:

    Loser wrote: “demented French loon … I don’t care about those issues … getting our panties in a twist about inconsequential trivia … There’s a lot of us psychotics out there”

    Yes, there certainly are, but that doesn’t mean the rest of us have to be psychotics too. That “inconsequential trivia” is my money being stolen, my rights being violated and my choices being artificially restricted by anticompetitive business practices, along with the money and rights of potentially millions of others who are also not afforded a choice by Microsoft’s cartel of “channel partners”.

    I wouldn’t really expect a narcissist like you to care, but if you’re so indifferent then why bother to even discuss it, trivialise it and then gloat about it? That’s not merely dispassionate behaviour, it’s palpably malevolent. And then, to cap it all, it turns out you’re actually a Microsoft employee posting anonymously in defence of his employer’s anticompetitive business practices, so you’re not only a psychotic narcissist, but a shill to boot.

    I’m fairly sure astroturfing is illegal, on both sides of the pond:

    http://www.text100-uk.com/2011/12/why-astroturfing-exposes-your-business-to-legal-risk-hint-because-its-illegal

    Loser wrote: “For instance, I rarely if ever feel the need to use the optical disk player that comes with every computer I buy: the Internet has seen to that. Is some evil corporate thief therefore “stealing” twenty quid or so off me?”

    So which manufacturer has a global monopoly on optical drives? You have a choice of hundreds of different models of PCs, many of which come with no optical drive at all, and of those that do the drives are made by many different manufacturers.

    You have a choice.

    Now, how many of those same PCs offer a choice of operating system?

    Loser wrote: “a tiny injustice; at worst”

    In your opinion, but then that’s the opinion of someone whose money isn’t being stolen, whose consumer rights aren’t being violated, and whose choices aren’t being artificially limited by anticompetitive business practices, because you’re lucky enough to coincidentally want Microsoft’s products, which is perfectly understandable for a Microsoft employee (heck, for all I know you help make those product). What was it Miguel said about “dogfooding”?

    But just try to be a decent human being for one moment, and consider the possibility that there may be some of us who (incredibly unlikely though it may seem to someone like you) don’t want Windows, but who do want a PC, and that when we buy a PC made by one company, we should not be obligated to pay for an unwanted operating system “bundled” with it by an entirely unrelated third-party, especially when that “bundle” is only “licensed not sold”, and is therefore not even part of the Contract of Sale for the PC, but must instead be “agreed to” post-sale or else the PC itself, which is not Microsoft’s property, must be returned to the retailer, as the one and only viable means by which we can secure a refund for that unwanted “bundle”.

    Of course, there’s always that risky, expensive, four-year court battle, but as all good narcissists know, it’s only “demented French loons” who do that.

    Right?

  7. Der Balrog says:

    What I find curious, Michael, is why you feel the need to keep chopping and changing your pseudonym …

    Und dieser nämliche Michael hat extra Deutsch gelernt, um hier in Herr Pogsons unwichtigem Blog nun diesen Kommentar abzugeben? Weit hergeholt. Wie fast alles, was ihr durchgedrehten Dogmatiker so aus dem Hut zaubert.

    Chuckle. The feeble minds of Linux worshippers at work again.

  8. Dr Loser says:

    BSD does not support as much ram as Linux.

    I’m not in a position to comment one way or the other, Hamster. Besides, my point was not specific to BSD: I was simply observing that Linux is a good choice for HPC, but not the only one.

    However, it seems unlikely to me that *BSD on a 64-bit architecture doesn’t support 64GB of RAM. And believe me, 64GB of RAM gives you a whole lot of “big data processing.”

    BSD does not support as many processes as Linux.

    So what? When was the requirement to spawn processes all over the place a vital part of “big data processing?”

    Never, that’s when, Hamster. One DP process for each CPU, plus a dozen or so other helper processes. That is the rule with these things. You do not squander high-powered machines by thrashing around between processes any more than strictly necessary.

    Big data processing the data is that huge you cannot use a cluster to push it all over the place or split it up into pieces.

    Of course you can. People do this all the time.

    Send 1 very huge block to 1 machine.

    Is that supposed to actually mean anything?

    Not all tasks can be split over a cluster.

    Very nearly all of them can, even in “big data processing.”

    Because 1 operation is dependant on the results of the last.

    Ever heard of Map-Reduce, Hamster. Google have. Microsoft has. That’s how we do this stuff, for goodness’ sake.

    I’ve worked on it. You’ve never actually been anywhere near it, have you? Unless you were installing an electric fence for the Dubbo data centre or something.

  9. Dr Loser says:

    Why you don’t care about these issues is anyone’s guess.

    A lovely rhetorical flourish (most of your wall of gibberish is a rhetorical flourish, albeit occasionally spiced with tired old stories like that one about the demented French loon), but a misguided approach, I feel.

    It is a normal courtesy, when puzzled by somebody’s actions or inaction, to ask them to explain. But you don’t strike me as a believer in normal courtesies — in fact you don’t strike me as normal in any respect whatsoever — so I’ll save you the trouble and explain anyway.

    I don’t care about those issues because they are not issues. Or, more accurately, because they are just gnat-bites in the face of genuine issues.

    For instance, I rarely if ever feel the need to use the optical disk player that comes with every computer I buy: the Internet has seen to that. Is some evil corporate thief therefore “stealing” twenty quid or so off me? I guess you could look at it that way. I prefer to consider it an unavoidable cost of buying a commoditized package.

    Every single one of your purported “issues” is like that. At best an overblown railing against a tiny injustice; at worst, raging paranoia.

    My guess would be you’re malevolent, or at least emotionally disconnected (i.e. psychotic).

    Yeah, me and about a billion other people who use Windows without getting our panties in a twist about inconsequential trivia.

    There’s a lot of us psychotics out there. You’re lucky to have the voice behind the fridge warning you about us.

    Oh, and you don’t sound like the Hamster at all. He’s frequently obsessive and almost always as hopelessly wrong as you are, but at least he’s endearing. I would imagine that it must be quite an effort maintain such a permanent level of embittered snottiness as yours.

  10. Homer wrote, “you’re a documented Net kook who suffers an anxiety disorder and requires medication and psychotherapy, which may account for your trolling, stalking and nym-shifing across dozens of Websites and hundreds of Usenet articles every week.”

    At least that will keep him out of real trouble…

    I don’t know but it could be Nathan Myhrvold who whined like this:
    “Competitors routinely use innuendo and vague claims of wrong doing against us. So far we have basically not responded, or if we have. the message does not come across anywhere near as well as theirs does. We do not have a very articulate response.

    Random assholes-on—a-soapbox put forward their pet theories at our expense. Mitch Kapor is one such person – he will attempt to use his new found lobbying power against us. Self appointed ‘experts’ like Charles Ferguson attempt to become the pundit de jour by writing all sorts of crap about how we plotted IBM ‘s downfall (like they needed help doing this!). Besides being annoying, I wind up having to combat this bullshit with every company that we do business with.”

    HeHeHe! M$ofties think we are all out to get them so they have to do anything legal or not to fight back.
    see http://www.justice.gov/atr/cases/exhibits/994.pdf

    What does it mean when an executive of a powerful corporation thinks the world is out to get him?

  11. Homer says:

    “Der Balrog”: I have come to the conclusion that you are Peter Dolding.

    But you already know exactly who I am, Snit, as I’ve posted that information on COLA every day for years, and indeed even this “pseudonym” is my real-life nickname, which I use everywhere in both real life and on the Internet.

    What I find curious, Michael, is why you feel the need to keep chopping and changing your pseudonym, presumably to avoid detection and thus the revelation that you’re a documented Net kook who suffers an anxiety disorder and requires medication and psychotherapy, which may account for your trolling, stalking and nym-shifing across dozens of Websites and hundreds of Usenet articles every week.

  12. Homer says:

    I missed this classic:

    Loser wrote: “You are completely incapable of distinguishing between genuine evil … But I like idiots. I particularly like idiots who contribute to charities.”

    I have to laugh at the irony of a narcissist claiming to have superior judgement on questions of good and evil.

  13. Der Balrog says:

    @Homer:

    After careful analysis of the length and nonsensical nature of your wall of text I have come to the conclusion that you are Peter Dolding. I always knew that oiaohm’s weird speech patterns were just for show.

  14. oiaohm says:

    Der Balrog
    –“I accidentally reminded myself of the robustness of GNU/Linux last week when I failed to shutdown -r after installing the latest stable kernel but instead did hibernate.”

    Please now remind us why this is supposed to be something special.–

    Because by Miguel de Icaza that never works. Lot of the hardware that failed Linux Hibernate was also the hardware with defective Embedded controller chips. These also caused nasty things like cutting power from windows before final write.

    Yes its just us laughing about some of the stupid claims Miguel de Icaza has made.

    So expect not to get a few things said Der Balrog.

  15. Homer says:

    I wrote: Does the fact of my criticising Microsoft’s criminal business practices magically negate the possibility that I also care about other issues?

    Loser wrote: No. Did I say it did?

    Oh dear, now you’re just back-pedalling. You clearly implied it by introducing the orthogonal issue of “famines” to trivialise Microsoft’s criminal business tactics, and make it seem like my priorities misplaced, even though criticism of Microsoft’s (or anyone else’s) criminal business practices is fully justified and serious enough to warrant several antitrust cases, and you have absolutely no idea of my ethical priorities, or even which other injustices I campaign against, or which other causes I support and how I support them.

    Or did you have some other reason for introducing the orthogonal topic of famines?

    Loser wrote: If the level of discourse is “I don’t like these practices. I think something should be done about it. I have better things to do with my fifteen quid,” then you would have a point.

    It’s two points: one that affects me personally, and a general principle (i.e. my empathetic response to others affected by the same problem).

    You know, “empathy”, that thing experienced by decent human beings, but which is sadly lacking in psychopaths.

    In neither case is the quantity stolen relevant. The only reason I even mentioned the specific amount is because it had to be leaked by Samsung before anyone even knew how much Microsoft was extorting, and that the amount was exactly equal to the cost of licensing Microsoft’s entire mobile operating system, and thus was clearly extortionate and, moreover, specifically designed to destroy competition by unethical means.

    Not to mention the fact that this “protection fee” is completely unjustified, since Microsoft has never even revealed what these mysterious “patents” supposedly are, much less had them openly challenged, which is no doubt exactly why they’re so obsessed with keeping them secret in the first place. The adage “if you’ve done nothing wrong then you’ve nothing to hide” comes to mind.

    So what is Microsoft hiding? After all, the whole point of patents is publication. That’s the deal: you get a state-protected monopoly in exchange for publishing your alleged “invention”. No publication, no monopoly. So frankly I’m a bit puzzled as to why Microsoft would need or even want to keep these “patents” a secret … unless of course the whole thing is a scam intended to intimidate companies into paying up, and the “patents” either don’t exist or are so trivial that they’d immediately be declared invalid if they were ever challenged.

    The only company that ever came close to revealing and subsequently challenging these imaginary “patents” was Barnes & Noble, and that was only because they refused to sign Microsoft’s NDA. Unfortunately Barnes & Noble was annexed by Microsoft shortly thereafter (by no coincidence), and we never got to see the truth.

    It makes me wonder how many other unjustifiable “agreements” Microsoft has managed to enforce under the cloak of NDA.

    Perhaps now you see why I characterise this as racketeering.

    Of course Microsoft already has a documented history of such behaviour, so it’s not exactly wild speculation.

    [quote]
    Gateway also faulted another provision of the new licensing agreement, which requires PC makers to pay a Windows royalty on every PC shipped, even if it didn’t include Windows.
    [/quote]

    http://news.cnet.com/Gateway-exec-Microsoft-too-powerful/2100-1016_3-868413.html

    Is that what you would characterise as an ethical business practice? Would it somehow be more ethical if Microsoft had extorted less “money for nothing”?

    If you break into my home, crack open my safe and steal a single coin from a bag containing millions-worth in notes and bonds, are your actions somehow justified because you took so little? Haven’t you nonetheless stolen from me? Haven’t you still violated me?

    Forcing me to pay for an OS I don’t want and will never use is theft. Extorting money for “patents” which you refuse to even reveal, much less prove their validity, is theft.

    I have to wonder at the mentality of those who think violations are acceptable based purely on quantitative factors.

    The amount that Microsoft steals from me is irrelevant. It’s the fact that they do it at all that bothers me, that they do so with complete impunity, and that my only recourse is a vicious battle against superior forces where I’m extremely unlikely to prevail.

    Here’s one of the very few who did:

    [quote]
    A French laptop buyer has won a refund from Lenovo after a four-year legal battle over the cost of a Windows license he didn’t want. The judgment could open the way for PC buyers elsewhere in Europe to obtain refunds for bundled software they don’t want, French campaign group No More Racketware said Monday.
    [/quote]

    http://news.idg.no/cw/art.cfm?id=42FBDDC1-D961-E6F1-140BE9139B4F4B08

    Should I, or anyone else, really be expected to have to endure a risky, expensive, four-year legal battle, just to secure a pittance of a refund for an unwanted, third-party “bundle”?

    But I’m sure you believe this is a big fuss about nothing, right? I should just bend over and chew my toenails for Microsoft, then beg for more, because I’m only being exploited by Microsoft a little bit, so I should just shut up and take it, like a good little consumer, right?

    And please understand that my complaint is not about “bundling” per se. A time-limited promotion restricted to a single product from a single vendor in a single store is one thing, because at least I have alternatives under those circumstances, and eventually that promotion will expire, but when you’re talking about permanent and universal “bundling” without option that’s another matter entirely.

    I feel strongly about this. You don’t. I think this is outrageous. You don’t. I care that Microsoft is stealing money from my pocket, and that of millions of other people. You don’t. I despise Microsoft’s morally-bankrupt business tactics. You don’t. I think consumer and competition rights are important. You don’t.

    Why you don’t care about these issues is anyone’s guess. My guess would be you’re malevolent, or at least emotionally disconnected (i.e. psychotic). But I have to concede the possibility of Hanlon’s razor (“Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.”). Maybe you do care but you’re afraid to say anything, because you got caught up in something you didn’t initially understand, and now you’re too committed to back out.

    I don’t know, and frankly I don’t care. All I know is you are certainly not part of the solution, and your apathy (if that’s all it is) is sickening.

    Loser wrote: But since your level of discourse is to attack Microsoft and their “defenders” (actually we’re just rational human beings

    I’m attacking the cause of the problem. Clearly you don’t want me to, which makes you part of that problem, and the fact that you don’t have a problem with Microsoft’s criminal business tactics confirms it. Indeed, not only are you not part of the solution in a passive sense, but your defence of Microsoft makes it clear you actively support them despite their well documented criminal methods, which makes you equally culpable, at least morally. Or to paraphrase your oaf of a boss Ballmer: Microsoft has an obligation to eventually compensate its victims.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5B0GTYfPoMo

    Loser wrote: I work for the damn company

    Of course you do. There was never any doubt in my mind about that. Your “work” is strewn all over this page.

  16. Der Balrog says:

    I accidentally reminded myself of the robustness of GNU/Linux last week when I failed to shutdown -r after installing the latest stable kernel but instead did hibernate.

    Please now remind us why this is supposed to be something special.

  17. oiaohm says:

    Der Balrog
    –“Linux is the dominate force in big data processing. Big data processing is a great threat to privacy and freedom.”

    Now then, suddenly it looks like you’d have to criticize Linux. “Big data” threatens privacy and freedom. Therefore Linux is bad because it makes possible “big data”–
    You made a big mistake.

    Also do you know how much profiling is big data. Answer is profiling of humans is stacks of small data. That produce a collective image. Any OS can be used to profile users.

    So by your arguement we should destroy all computers Der Balrog. You first Der Balrog since you put forward this arguement your computer could be infected by a bot processing out data on you.

    Medical data processing, Building struct processing…… End up at times with maths you cannot break down into smaller units. This processing normally does not breach privacy.

    So since you made that claim I really should not see you again or were you like Miguel saying statements you don’t really believe in.

    Big data processing does save lives and lot of it only possible because of Linux. Profiling of humans to break someone privacy don’t need Linux heck you don’t even have to use your own machines.

    Der Balrog basically you are desperate and digging yourself a bigger hole.

  18. Arup wrote, “GO TO HELL EGOIST MIGUEL.”

    Amen. It’s amazing how a reasonably intelligent person cannot understand that GNU/Linux dealing with every conceivable configuration of hardware does really well and Apple needs to limit configurations to what it produces to give the same effect. I’ve been in schools with 7 different types of PC and one disk-image of GNU/Linux would work on them all while that other OS needed a different image for each and Apple couldn’t be bothered.

    The guy is just silly. Fortunately, Apple is a niche supplier of the too-wealthy and only has a few stores in the world so I don’t expect his short-sighted endorsement to have much effect.

    I accidentally reminded myself of the robustness of GNU/Linux last week when I failed to shutdown -r after installing the latest stable kernel but instead did hibernate. I went from 3.7.10 to 3.8.0 and hibernate still worked. Amazing. Linus and his gang of developers have given something wonderful to the world and we can all enjoy it even if Miguel does not. 🙂

  19. Arup says:

    He is out praising his crud Mac Air on how it suspends and resumes flawlessly, all my machines have been doing that since Ubuntu 9.04 and my latest 3rd gen i7 ASUS laptop does it flawlessly with 12.04 and 12.10. GO TO HELL EGOIST MIGUEL.

  20. GNU/Linux has made it on the desktop and every other form of IT where competition thrives. GNU/Linux thrives in some parts of the world and not in others due to the unevenness of competition but it has definitely made it in South America, BRIC countries, Malaysia etc.

    The bigger OEMs are finally shipping GNU/Linux because if they did not all the smaller OEMs would. While Wintel is stagnating, GNU/Linux on legacy PCs is growing rapidly and OEMs want a piece of the action.

  21. Der Balrog says:

    Linux might not have made it on to the desktop.

    Applause for acknowledging a simple truth.

    Linux is the dominate force in big data processing. Big data processing saves lives.

    Total bullshit. Your argument gets all messed up because you indirectly (and not so subtly) claim that Linux is good because “big data” saves lives, and “big data” is made possible by Linux. Then what about this?

    Linux is the dominate force in big data processing. Big data processing is a great threat to privacy and freedom.

    Now then, suddenly it looks like you’d have to criticize Linux. “Big data” threatens privacy and freedom. Therefore Linux is bad because it makes possible “big data”.

  22. oiaohm says:

    notzed he had for years. Yet it was still trying to feed advice in.

    If you are not using something enough to know where the real fault are you should not be commenting on it. This is a general rule.

    Basically Miguel need to know when it keep his mouth shut.

    Next is learn to never push an ideology on someone else you don’t belief if you do you just cause trouble.

  23. notzed says:

    Maybe miguel should just stop using software he worked on?

  24. Homer wrote, “Universal tying is a “conspiracy in restraint of trade” under the Sherman Act, last time I checked. Maybe that’s why both the DOJ and the European Commission prosecuted Microsoft … twice, and are about to do it again. Eh?”

    Amen. Part of the problem is that Bill Gates and Ballmer weren’t tarred and feathered the first or second times. These guys are organized criminals and should have been prosecuted under RICO. Treating them as over-zealous businessmen is wrong. Over-zealous businessmen change their ways when it is pointed out to them that they are not above the laws. These guys just hire more conspirators to figure out new ways to be criminal.

  25. oiaohm says:

    Dr Loser
    –And it also beats me why this can be attributed to Kernel Magic rather than, say, an equivalent system built on top of BSD.–

    Because that is not possible. You don’t get big data processing. Required the OS to have the means to support huge volumes of ram. Because you want to be producing operations on huge data sets quickly without have to go to disc and back.

    BSD does not support as much ram as Linux. BSD does not support as many processes as Linux.

    –massive databases or massive parallel search–
    You are talking about searching I am talking about data manipulation.

    You are correct its not extN or Btrfs in big data processing.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceph_%28file_system%29
    http://www.gluster.org/
    and Orcales. For the cluster layer.

    For the real storage on disc its one of the oldest file systems XFS by IBM.

    extN and BTRFS are not used in big data processing. BTRFS is being trailed but its still years before it will be confided. ZFS from oracle is not as stable as XFS. Years and years of development to dig the bugs out of XFS shows.

    Big data processing you don’t use a database for anything other than management. Have you seen how Oracle or DB2 performs if you want to request a 1tb block of data out of it. For some of the data sets in medical 1tb is small. In fact 1tb could be a single entry.

    BSD stands a better chance than Microsoft Windows. Reality is most of the data sets sections you need in memory are larger than the max ram Windows is tested with.

    Dr Loser massive databases or massive parallel search is all windows can handle. Windows cannot handle the massive compare transformation. Just does not have the support for the ram or the number of processes per machine to split the workload up. Number of machines in cluster is not usable. The operations being performed are interdependent on each other.

    Big data processing the data is that huge you cannot use a cluster to push it all over the place or split it up into pieces. Send 1 very huge block to 1 machine. Not all tasks can be split over a cluster. Because 1 operation is dependant on the results of the last.

    Windows only supports tasks that can be split.

    BSD yes it use to rule problem is lot of the extensions to support huge mother systems never end up back mainline.

    Just to give you how insane these big processing servers are. A company running many 4000+ core server complains to the Linux kernel that its taking more than 200ms to take out a lock. When it gets down to 20ms its tolerable but they are not happy.

    There preferred figure is zero no lock. Trying to build a OS without locks is insanely hard. Yes the number of locks in the Linux kernel is reducing to service big data processors requests.

    The time Windows takes to start a application is like forever to big data processing. Heck the time windows takes to start a new thread. Number of locks you hit processing data is too high in Windows. Simple reality everything about windows is too slow for these who are doing big data processing.

    Just put in a few more machines is not a possibility. Many of the centres used for big data processing are at there electrical power limits. So the only way to process more is be more effective.

    Dr Loser Microsoft don’t hear from the big data processors because Microsoft not even in the ball park or the stadium or even the same country. BSD would manage to be on the stadium just not good enough to get on the field. Some of the Unixs would manage to be sitting on the reserve bench. The field is filled with different Linux based solutions.

    OS price is a very small factor.

    Dr Loser what you were thinking about was huge volume processing. This is not huge data processing. Huge volume processing has lots of small data or huge data you can break up into small data to process on many individual machines.

    I am not saying Windows cannot do Huge Volume Processing. Any OS can do Huge volume processing you can just throw more boxes at it you will make it. Huge Data processing that you cannot break up the data is the one that is hard. Then when the parties want real-time. This is what is requested from the Linux kernel developers to pull off.

  26. Dr Loser says:

    And now we have a Hamsterism.

    Linux is the dominate force in big data processing. Big data processing saves lives.

    That’s a totally malformed thesis, because you haven’t even defined what “big data processing” is. But let me help you out.

    HPCs are practically 100% Linux, and why not? Any other free kernel would do for HPC work, but Linux is there and it works fine. Beats me how most supercomputer activity saves lives, though. And it also beats me why this can be attributed to Kernel Magic rather than, say, an equivalent system built on top of BSD.

    The rest of “big data processing” generally falls into the realms of either massive databases or massive parallel search systems. Let’s not mention the second one, since Microsoft is equally adept, technologically speaking.

    But massive databases are a legacy of Big Iron, and they are generally built on top of either DB2 or Oracle. (With credits due to PostgreSQL and even Informix and of course IIS.)

    With the exception of IIS, these are all platform neutral. There is not a single damn thing that Linux contributes to “big data processing” that cannot be done on another OS. In fact, with the exception of Oracle and its inheritance of Sun’s advanced file systems — and I know how much FOSS people just love Oracle — it’s hard to see how Linux does anything but get in the way.

    Anybody using a FOSS file-system for “big data processing” is asking for their lunch to be eaten. And please don’t start linking to your hoard of idiot extN and BTRFS and whatnot sites.

    The current state of Linux file systems, outside of the ones supplied by Oracle, is frankly not up to the task of “big data processing.” Unless you are particularly fond of “big data lossage.”

  27. Dr Loser says:

    Does the fact of my criticising Microsoft’s criminal business practices magically negate the possibility that I also care about other issues?

    No. Did I say it did?

    Does it prevent me from donating money to charity, or campaigning against other injustices?

    No. Did I say it did?

    Hello straw, meet man.

    If the level of discourse is “I don’t like these practices. I think something should be done about it. I have better things to do with my fifteen quid,” then you would have a point.

    But since your level of discourse is to attack Microsoft and their “defenders” (actually we’re just rational human beings. I work for the damn company, and even I am ambivalent at best) as “fascists” and “gangsters,” then I think you will … no, wait a minute, I’m sure that you won’t … I think that even Robert (who is a mild-mannered sort at heart) would admit that you’re going over the top.

    Consequently your £15 donations to charity are a side issue. Your intellectual attitude frankly stinks. You are completely incapable of distinguishing between genuine evil (say, beating up people because of the colour of their skin), accidental evil (say, manipulating bank rates just because you can and without considering the wider consequences), and no evil at all (say, a theoretical charge on you, personally, of fifteen quid which is then offset by either crapware or savings on inventory/support/returns).

    You are basically an idiot, to borrow one of the Hamster’s favourite words.

    But I like idiots. I particularly like idiots who contribute to charities.

    Do let me know, the next time you bung fifteen quid into a deserving bucket. Even the FSF counts for this one.

  28. oiaohm says:

    Miguel de Icaza was pushing the idea of using no closed at all. Der Balrog. This is far worse than Robert Pogson yet you defended him.

    Please do me a favour in future don’t be two faced. Don’t defend people who have brought the worse virus.

    –This is about Pogson & Co. claiming that their choice (FLOSS) is the only right choice. Always.–

    You also need to read carefully. Does a salesman of Microsoft ever say that Linux or Mac is the right choice.

    Robert Pogson pushes the line should be free. A will be free would not even attempted to make a blackberry work.

    Dr Loser
    “Linux won’t cure malaria”
    You need to look up what Linus Torvalds got the Millennium Technology Prize with Shinya Yamanaka.

    Shinya Yamanaka work was not possible without the work on the Linux kernel to support processing huge data.

    To find a cure to Malaria you will also need this massive processing ability.

    Sorry Dr Loser the fact is Linux processing power support will be the how come we will be able to find cures to lots of illness.

    Microsoft has not be capable of producing a OS than can handle big data sets well neither have been the Unix OS makers. There should be some things we should be thankful for about Linux. Faster and better medical research is one of them.

    Linux might not have made it on to the desktop. Linux is the dominate force in big data processing. Big data processing saves lives.

  29. Homer says:

    Sorry, but I’ve never been the victim of a famine caused by Microsoft, so you’ll have to forgive me if that’s not what concerns me most about that company, although admittedly it’s not entirely beyond the realm of possibility, given that Bill Gates is heavily involved with Monsanto – the company that wants to patent third-world crops.

    Does the fact of my criticising Microsoft’s criminal business practices magically negate the possibility that I also care about other issues? Does it prevent me from donating money to charity, or campaigning against other injustices?

    I fully realise that the injustices being perpetrated by criminal monopolists means nothing to you, but please don’t be so arrogant as to assume that your apathy (or perhaps outright support for gangster-economics) means nobody else should care about those things either, nor that they only care about a single injustice to the exclusion of all others.

    Go peddle your false dichotomies elsewhere.

  30. Dr Loser says:

    I think, Homer, if you are going to get hifalutin’ about principles, you should stop quoting prices. Particularly tiddly little ones like fifteen quid. Particularly when they are not stealing it off you (if indeed they are stealing, which would be a wholly different principled argument), but off the OEM. Who would probably steal the fifteen quid off you, given half a chance.

    Calling people fascists and gangsters is entirely out of scale with these “principles” you delude yourself that you believe in.

    Let’s start with famines. Almost every famine in the history of Mankind has been politically motivated.

    Every ten years or so, even now, a famine comes along (politically motivated) that kills upwards of ten million people.

    Those people do not care about some piddly little grievance you have concerning small change that you would probably lose behind the sofa.

    Those people would laugh in your face if you were to assert that you are so principled that you spend your spare time arguing about putative small change that may or may not exist, rather than being principled and putting the same amount of effort into actually helping people in need.

    Clue: people in need do not generally need a small reduction in the price of hardware. They generally need food.

    Go ahead, call me a fascist gangster, you unprincipled little divot.

  31. Rambo Tribble says:

    It would seem that amongst developers there are those who are committed and there are those who should be committed. Mr. de Icaza has long evinced himself as the latter sort.

  32. Homer says:

    “This isn’t about my choice. This isn’t about the right choice.”

    And of course your definition of “the right choice” is an absolute fact, not a subjective opinion?

    Eh, Snit?

    You really do have a cult mentality.

  33. Homer says:

    No it isn’t “just software”, in fact it may surprise you to learn that I have no technical interest in the software at all. None.

    My interest is principles. Period. I simply don’t care about anything else.

    So what principles are those?

    Well for a start, how about the principle that Microsoft shouldn’t be allowed to steal money from me every time I buy a “desktop” PC made by a company entirely unrelated to Microsoft?

    Universal tying is a “conspiracy in restraint of trade” under the Sherman Act, last time I checked. Maybe that’s why both the DOJ and the European Commission prosecuted Microsoft … twice, and are about to do it again. Eh?

    That isn’t even a Free Software principle, it’s just a consumer rights and competition issue.

    Or how about the principle that Microsoft shouldn’t be allowed to steal £15 of my money every time I buy an Android device, because of mysterious “patents” that Microsoft suspiciously refuses to even reveal?

    Again, that’s just a consumer rights issue, and has nothing to do with “abstract” or “fundamentalist” ideologies.

    Do you enjoy being robbed, Mr. Loser?

    And how would you characterise someone who robs you, and millions of other people, then gets away with it?

    Yes, I’m sure Microsoft is just cute little fluffy bunny that saves puppies from dragons, and not a bunch of racketeering gangsters who sabotaged the OLPC charity, bribed Nigerian education suppliers to dump Mandriva, and bribed Swedish OOXML delegates just to maintain their Office monopoly. Honest.

    The litany of Microsoft’s crimes fills over 3GB of court documents. I know this because I have a copy of them here:

    http://antitrust.slated.org/www.iowaconsumercase.org/index.html

    So please don’t pretend it’s “just software”.

    To hell with the software. I’m fighting for justice, consumer rights and my own liberty, and in that regard Microsoft is public enemy No1, regardless of whether they sell software or teapots.

  34. Der Balrog says:

    What sort of sick bastard thinks a voluntarily choice based on personal preference is analogous to self-imposed slavery.

    I’m trying to tell you that a choice imposed on you by ideology isn’t a real choice. (Please note that I’m not talking about ideology in a general sense but in a political sense.)

    But if I capitulated to his preferences, I’d magically have Real® Freedom, because only his choice is the right one. Obviously.

    This isn’t about my choice. This isn’t about the right choice. This is about Pogson & Co. claiming that their choice (FLOSS) is the only right choice. Always.

    So you’ve got it backwards. Or else show me one example where Pogson & Co. in principle acknowledge that using something besides FLOSS is a valid choice.

    And naturally the fact that he also voluntarily makes his own choices based on his preferences does not make him a slave. Oh, no, no. Because his choices are the Right® ones.

    See above.

    Either way I’m a ‘slave’ … at least according to fascist nuts like ‘Der Balrog’.

    Everyone uses the word “fascist” today without having a clue what it means. “Fascist” this, “fascist” that. LOL.

  35. Dr Loser says:

    Y’know, Homer, it’s just an OS. Just a kernel, plus GNU support tools, plus a few other goodies.

    Linux won’t cure malaria. Neither will Windows (although the Gates Foundation might).

    They’re just OSes. When you start babbling about “fascist opportunists” and “gangster heroes,” you look like an ignorant fool. Worse, as with the boy who cried wolf, you are obviously unfit to handle the real fascist opportunists and gangster heroes when they come along.

    My advice to you?

    Keep up the party line on “Monopolies” and “Coercion” and “Malware” and “Re-re-re-boots.” All of these things are at least vaguely based in fact. It’s a party line for a reason: it’s quite easy to persuade people to believe in it. (Hell, I did, once.)

    But even die-hard adherents to the cause of the Four Freedoms tend to get alarmed when you froth at the mouth like that.

  36. Homer says:

    Having now run a text analysis of “Der Balrog’s” posts, I can conclude with a 99% probability that he is in fact Michael Glasser (a.k.a. “Snit”, a.k.a. the “Prescott Computer Guy”), a well-known Internet troll, Apple cultist and self-admitted mental patient under medication and psychotherapy.

    Mystery solved.

  37. Homer says:

    Oh and yes, I fully realise that “Der Balrog” is simply regurgitating de Icaza’s sentiments, but then they both seem to have conveniently overlooked the obvious fact that any voluntary choice can be unmade just as easily as it can be made, so how exactly can anyone characterise that as “slavery”?

    De Icaza was no more coerced into choosing Free Software than he was coerced into abandoning it. His preferences changed. That’s all. His preferences. And now, what? He wants to characterise that as everyone else’s mistake too?

    De Icaza is an idiot, and worse – a troublemaking idiot with an agenda, who wants to blame Free Software for his own stupidity, cognitive dissonance and betrayal. People are responsible for their own choices, Miguel. If you made a mistake then accept it for what it is – your mistake, but don’t go around claiming everyone else’s choices must therefore also be a mistake.

    As for this “Der Balrog” character, he’s just a fascist opportunist who came crawling out from under a rock to capitalise on de Icaza’s stupidity, to peddle the anti-freedom gambit, presumably in defence of his gangster heroes (and/or possibly employers) at Microsoft or Apple.

    Freedom of choice is self-imposed slavery?

    Yeah, right.

    Incidentally, can it be any coincidence that de Icaza chose to publish this sensationalist propaganda at a time when the Wintel market is in crisis, and Apple’s mobile device monopoly is slowly being squeezed out?

    Wouldn’t it be great for Apple if they could mop-up some of Microsoft’s losses? I wonder how much they’d pay someone to help them do that. Eh, Miguel?

    Miguel “MVP” de Icaza is not only a traitor to Free Software, but he’s even betrayed his former heroes at Microsoft.

    How can we be expected to take someone like that seriously, when they can’t even make up their own mind what it is they want, then they go around blaming everyone else for their own indecision and remorse?

    Pathetic.

  38. Homer says:

    What sort of sick bastard thinks a voluntarily choice based on personal preference is analogous to self-imposed slavery.

    Well, “Der Balrog”, apparently.

    But if I capitulated to his preferences, I’d magically have Real® Freedom, because only his choice is the right one. Obviously.

    And naturally the fact that he also voluntarily makes his own choices based on his preferences does not make him a slave. Oh, no, no. Because his choices are the Right® ones.

    Well certainly his politics are “Right”, if nothing else, but in an altogether more sinister sense.

    So, let’s get this straight: my two choices are to become a slave to someone else’s preferences, or become a “slave” to my own.

    Either way I’m a “slave” … at least according to fascist nuts like “Der Balrog”.

    Propagandists are so transparent.

  39. Dr Loser says:

    I don’t think you can fairly accuse Richard Stallman of shopping at Amazon, Balrog.

    Last time I looked, the API for wget was still under development.

  40. oiaohm says:

    Der Balrog really

    –If someone builds something very useful on top of liberally licensed FLOSS, but chooses to give back a free binary instead of the source code, then that someone has still added something very useful to the ecosystem, even though he has “violated” Stallman’s freedoms. Is that someone a traitor, too?–

    No. But it is a traitor pretending ally when really being an enemy . A person who releases a closed source program like the people making the steam binary we will not call a traitor.

    We were pretty strict about it: both from an ideological point of view, back in the days of all-software-will-be-free, and then practically – during my tamer business days. I routinely chastised fellow team members that had opted for the easy path and avoided our Linux products.
    Then this.
    Even during all of my dogfooding and Linux advocacy days, whenever I had to recommend recommended a computer to a single new user, I recommended a Mac. And whenever I gave away computer gifts to friends and family, it was always a Mac. Linux just never managed to cross the desktop chasm.
    Complete conflict right. Apparently you cannot read. Those two paragraphs cannot both be true unless you were being a traitorous bastard. He was always a true Mac person at core either. He should never been a traitor to himself either.

    Now if he was always recommending Windows I would say he was a true Windows person at core.

    True Linux people alway end up recommending Linux to someone todo some task.

    Since the first paragraph you should be recommending computer as part of solution at times and some of those would have been new users. So what did he out the the mailing list like email go use Mac because Gnome suxs? Basically his story does not add up.

    Reality he was pushing people to use FOSS and not really believing it himself. This also make senses since his driving reason for gnome was to allow producing closed source programs.

    Miguel de Icaza so he push an ideological point of view without tempering it with reality. This is extremely hazard when under it all you don’t believe what you are pushing.

    Miguel de Icaza is guilty of taking appearing to take a die hard position and due to his position in the GNOME project teacher others that the die hard position was the correct thing. Even that the complete time he really did not believe it.

    Can you get this Der Balrog.
    Miguel de Icaza has direct admitted pushing ideals on other people that he really did not believe himself

    Yes Stallman pushes ideals he does believe them.

    Miguel de Icaza statements by his statements even more strict that Stallman. Stallman recommends using all open source software. Stallman does accept not everyone will be able todo that.

    “all-software-will-be-free” Is not Stallman

    Stallman is “Software Should be Free”. This is a tempered by reality statement. Yes it allows for some software not being free.

    Head of Valve has ideals and does push them not FOSS. I can accept people like this.

    People pretending to be something they are not. Does no one any good and we are better off without them.

    –self-imposed ideological shackles– Notice something here. A leader who places ideological shackles around himself he does not believe does everyone harm.

    The traitor charge comes from the fact internally he believed one thing and displayed a different thing externally that was not tempered by reality.

    Anyone taking the line “all-software-will-be-free” is a traitor to freedom since this is unworkable.

    Problem is Miguel de Icaza has spread the sabotage of “all-software-will-be-free”.

    Der Balrog here is the thing Miguel de Icaza is a bigger extremist than Stallman when he had those cuffs on to everyone around him.

    Does not Miguel de Icaza owe an sorry to for pushing that insane belief on other people.

    I find it funny that you find Miguel de Icaza ok when he is a bigger nut case than Stallman.

  41. Der Balrog says:

    @oiaohm:

    And you don’t seem to understand that de Icaza cleary stated in his blog post that freeing himself from his self-imposed ideological shackles was the best thing he could do.

    Perhaps you haven’t noticed that the GPL’s use is receding. The kind of freedom propagated by Stallman is an ideological prison where he has “freedom” painted on the outside, with the paint still being wet. You are meant to feel free, but you really aren’t. If freedom means indeed the freedom of others then the GPL is guilty of violating that freedom.

    If someone builds something very useful on top of liberally licensed FLOSS, but chooses to give back a free binary instead of the source code, then that someone has still added something very useful to the ecosystem, even though he has “violated” Stallman’s freedoms. Is that someone a traitor, too? What’s with all the websites out there driven by FLOSS? Their source code isn’t available. Aren’t they traitors to the cause?

    Last but not least, if you take a die-hard position, like Stallman does, and posit it as an absolute, you’d have to take a die-hard position on everything else, too, based on your moralism. Yet I’ve seen Stallman drink Pepsi. Doesn’t he know that he’s supporting a greedy capitalist by doing that? Where does he get his clothes from? Have they been made under fair labor conditions? How many people slaved away to build the computer he uses? Do FLOSS supporters not order from Amazon, too? They do, but how can they reconcile that with the fact that workers in Amazon’s shipping centers are exploited in a Marxian sense?

  42. oiaohm says:

    Der Balrog you are not understanding why we call Miguel de Icaza Traitor. Better term would be sabertage.

    Most people don’t know KDE released first. July 12, 1998 this is KDE.
    Gnome release in March 3, 1999.
    Kde founded October 14, 1996
    Gnome founded August 1997.

    All these dates don’t seam important until you wake up the problem with KDE back then is you could not make closed source software.

    Miguel de Icaza calling point for developers to Gnome was the freedom to make open or closed source software. Guess what Miguel de Icaza focus was even on back then.

    Then he moves on to the mono project and then after years accepting developers giving code under LGPL he migrates to MIT to allow he more ability to go closed.

    Der Balrog nothing about Miguel de Icaza history reads like a true supporter of FOSS. Yes when he got is MVP and other things he was made out as a high FOSS person. Maintaining the war between KDE and Gnome was to maintain is right to make closed source software. In fact it when QT the core library in KDE goes LGPL does Miguel de Icaza leave Gnome as a project lead.

    Basically we are better off without him trying to sabertage stuff instead of attempting to work with the other party.

    Now if someone like Ton from blender walked away or the maintainer of wine. Yes there are many others who history reads nice and clean as true FOSS people.

    Linus would not be a good example some people would say Good Riddance that is because he has stepped on there toes not because he was hiding what his goals were.

    Der Balrog Miguel de Icaza complete history is littered with where his selections have created fragmentation. Some of the reason why freedesktop.org does not have more common standards on the Linux desktop is Miguel de Icaza refusing to come to the table and the people who use to work under Miguel de Icaza at Gnome who are now in those positions still refusing.

    I really hope Miguel de Icaza last statement is a wake up call to them. Miguel de Icaza is not the person to follow.

  43. Der Balrog says:

    To make this sentence more clear:

    Oh, yes, this is also true to a certain degree for Windows and Mac OS X!

    It’s true for those Windows or Mac OS X users who also categorically refuse to consider the other options. They’re equally insane, but it won’t be felt as strongly.

  44. Der Balrog says:

    It’s funny seeing the apologists crawling out of the woodwork to defend a traitor like de Icaza.

    Exactly what I was talking about. Ludicrous ideologists, branding dissenters as traitors. There is, I fear, no meaningful discussion to be had with fundamentalists like yourself, Homer.

    I especially liked the “real freedom” comment, as though GNU/Linux users have a gun to their head that prevents them from running whatever software they want[.]

    Another candidate for “English Boot Camp”. No, real freedom wasn’t meant like this. It was meant precisely as I wrote it: that de Icaza out of ideology deprived himself of other meaningful choices. What does a person do who only is willing to use free software because of ideology? This person limits itself.

    It’s not that hard to understand, is it? But your analogy is, in fact, good. Yes, someone is holding a gun to the heads of those Linux users who categorically refuse to use non-free software — the users themselves!

    We can, of course, debate all day long if this self-limitation is an expression of freedom or not. In my opinion it’s not, from your point of view it very well may be.

    Yeah, obviously we ‘gave up our freedom’ when we voluntarily chose to install GNU/Linux.

    Sure you did. If you choose one thing then you’re necessarily excluding all the other options.

    Oh, yes, this is also true to a certain degree for Windows and Mac OS X! But as the majority of Linux FLOSS is not Linux-exclusive but also available for these two operating systems, not the least to say of all the FLOSS only available for Windows and/or Mac OS X, you can say with some certainty that in a general manner you are limited much more by choosing Linux.

    I certainly give you that: your subjectively felt freedom takes precedence. But it doesn’t change the cold, hard facts: rejecting everything non-free on ideological grounds is a bad move.

  45. oiaohm says:

    Dr Loser by the way the biggest problem with mono and .net has nothing todo with patents.

    Linux memory management is very effective for native binaries. Even very effective with items like python.

    Java there is the same kind of problem.

    Problem is both .net and java have the habit of have a lot of generated code in ram. Linux anything that is not mapped from a file has to go to swap space. On live/read only media there is no swap space. So neither java or .net is compatible with using read only media. Yet some distributions are forgetting this.

    For a live cd you can use gcj to turn java program into a native code program. So reducing ram that has to be sent to swap. Remember mapped into memory Linux kernel can free and read back from the file. Copy on write protection in the VFS in Linux exists for a very key reason.

    There are some environments where you should not attempt to use java or .net. They are just incompatible. One of those environments is distribution trial livecds.

    Dr Loser there are two exact different reasons for hating .net. If you are trying to run low ram with read only disc media you are going to hate .net at the same time hate java but you can work around java. .net is another problem completely.

  46. oiaohm says:

    Dr Loser because what is documented by Miguel de Icaza himself. Mono to be MS.net compatible leaves the Ecma specs.

    Microsoft patent grant only covers the items in the Ecma specs. This first was detected by the second life server emulator written in .net.

    Dr Loser http://www.gnu.org/s/dotgnu/ this engine was not that popular because lot of MS .net stuff just fails to run. The implementation errors is in MS .net. To spec .net bytecode in fact crashes MS .net even today.

    Microsoft history making specs and implementing identically is rare.

    Also has Homer latter versions of .net Microsoft has failed to release updated spec documents. This also means there patent grant does not cover those new sections lot of those sections are implemented in mono project.

    Dr Loser also we are quite entitled to be once bitten twice shy. The fat32 long filename patents were quite nasty. Thinking Microsoft published how to process them and failed to include that they were patent encumbered. Waited a few years then started suing companies over them.

    Dr Loser so we are in our right to suspect Microsoft will use patents wrong they have in the past and it has cost us.

    Now what gets us is that Microsoft could have made it quite simple and declared MS .net reference implementation and anyone duplicating that reference implementation would have been protected against MS patents. So allowing MS bugs in .net to be legally replicated.

    Yes Dr Loser Microsoft could fix this issue with mono with a few simple pen strokes fixing up the patent grants over .net.

  47. Homer says:

    “Care to define in what way Mono (or Ecma-334 and Ecma-335) is patent-encumbered)”

    ECMA?

    You’re a bit out of date, my ignorant friend. There hasn’t been an ECMA specification for C# since version 2.0 in 2006, and even back when Mono was an ECMA implementation it was also far more than that (e.g. Winforms), and therefore clearly exceeded the “covered implementations” for which Microsoft issued their dubious “community promise”.

    With later releases it’s anyone’s guess exactly what is or isn’t “covered”, especially as Microsoft likes to keep its patents “secret”, for some suspicious reason, but given Microsoft’s patent extortion tactics I’d bet a lot less is “covered” than it used to be, assuming Microsoft’s “promise” was even worth the price of the paper it was written on in the first place.

    If you’re going to shill for Microsoft then maybe you should think about doing better research.

  48. Homer says:

    It’s funny seeing the apologists crawling out of the woodwork to defend a traitor like de Icaza.

    I especially liked the “real freedom” comment, as though GNU/Linux users have a gun to their head that prevents them from running whatever software they want, including the Microsoft software that’s pre-installed without option on every PC they buy.

    Yeah, obviously we “gave up our freedom” when we voluntarily chose to install GNU/Linux. It had nothing to do with the fact that it’s more stable, secure, efficient, flexible and Free, enabling us to modify it to our exact needs (which includes running it on architectures unsupported by Windows and Mac OS X), and redistribute it without being branded “pirates”.

    Nope, nothing to do with that at all. Honest.

    Giving all your money to gangsters like Microsoft and/or Apple, for a bunch of malware and DRM infested junk that crashes and restricts everything you do on your own property according to the vendor’s demands … now that’s “freedom”, baby!

    LOL!

    Being a corporate shill should be a criminal offence.

  49. Dr Loser says:

    Care to define in what way Mono (or Ecma-334 and Ecma-335) is patent-encumbered), my paranoid Australian friend?

    Care to explain where Mono had any success whatsoever in “sneaking in” to the “Linux stack,” whatever the Linux stack might be? You might want to define the “Linux stack” while you’re at it. But I’m not holding my breath.

    This whole “boycott of Novell and SuSE” thing? Just a figment of Dr Roy’s imagination.

    You guys might lack the tech chops. You might even lack basic logical thinking. But I’d be the first to admit that you have superlative imaginations.

  50. ram says:

    Miguel de Icaza was no friend of Linux. His main project, Mono, was an attempt to sneak in Microsoft patented technology into the Linux stack. A whole boycott of Novell and SuSE got going as a result of this attempt.

    Ubuntu has some Mono in their distribution for a while and found it caused instabilities over time. My understanding is they removed those elements, but I’m now sticking with Debian anyway.

  51. oiaohm says:

    dougman

    –Was Icaza behind Gnome 3 or was that other stupid developers?–
    Other developers following some of the things Icaza left. A US vs Them attitude with poor talk to end users.

    Dr Loser
    –I’m trying to recall the last time an operating system became popular through infighting, mud-slinging, and a perpetual siege mentality (“them” versus “us”).–
    This is why Miguel de Icaza gone is a good thing. He was one of the major players in the us vs them battle of gnome vs kde. Development us vs them does not work.

    Dr Loser MS and Apple with the I a PC and I a Mac adds is classical US vs Them springs to mind.

    Perpetual siege mentality is documented about Bill Gates.

    So I will say Microsoft matches everything you said in it early history.

    Der Balrog
    –They don’t like that Ubuntu is doing something very bad in their opinion, without ever offering a basis for discussion as to why it is bad.–
    Ubuntu Mir attacking Wayland and forced to retract. These items bring bad will to Ubuntu.

    I am sorry to say Ubuntu gives as good as it gets Der Balrog. As a wine person I have a very good reason for not liking Ubuntu. Patches wine has tested by wine automated test system and rejected due to causing failures Ubuntu goes and includes.

    So most of my hate of Ubuntu is poor QA. Something has a testsuite use it.

    This is the thing every time I have mentioned hate of Ubuntu I have mentioned technical reason.

    –Can you, by the way, see the hypocrisy involved when Valve’s Steam is praised over the moon by the “community”, while Ubuntu/Canonical is attacked by the same “community” for wanting to earn money, for being traitors to the cause?–

    You miss what Ubuntu was being attacked over. Not running testsuites and not working with upstream providers of packages. Yes the upstream developers normally know the most if something is safe todo or not. Ubuntu was never attacked over wanting to run a store to provide closed source software.

    So there is no hypocrisy only you again not knowing your facts Der Balrog.

    If there is hypocrisy find me the complaint about Ubuntu do this http://shop.canonical.com/index.php?cPath=19 . There are a few but not common.

    In fact you will find Ubuntu praised over this.

    Valve and Ubuntu have been allowed todo exactly the same thing without major complaint. Valve gets complaints about Steam about the DRM but this does not change. Ubuntu store got a few complaints about that. Yes a very much minority response.

    Der Balrog your example just proves again you are working from ideology not research.

    Now if Valve takes something from upstream forks it does not test it well community will attack them. Did happen when Valve took dosbox and bady patched it for a old few games.

    So yes Valve has been got up by the open source community for doing the same stupidity as Ubuntu is.

    Community has some rules you don’t break if you don’t want to get picked on. One is don’t take something from upstream patch it downstream and fail to patch it properly and expect them to be happy.

  52. Der Balrog wrote, ” look at how Ubuntu has become mired in ideological discussion. Recently, the Internet-connected scopes come to mind. The problem is that the majority of people attack Ubuntu precisely on the grounds of ideology (not withstanding the fact that many technical decisions of Ubuntu can be attacked on technical grounds).”

    Canonical/Ubuntu is not mired in anything. They are forging ahead making deals with OEMs and getting GNU/Linux on retail shelves. This year, they appear to be breaking out of “other” in the web-stats. Clearly Canonical likes using FLOSS but they are not shy to do things “their way”. That’s OK, but they could do better sharing with the FLOSS community as well as they share with OEMs. I expect they will evolve. For now, I want no part of what they do except increase the odds of all PCs being Linux-compatible sooner or later. Canonical is on the verge of being a growing and self-sustaining business pushing GNU/Linux even if they try to hide that. I expect M. Shuttleworth sees Canonical as a good investment with plenty of upside.

    As with many empires they started with lots of grassroots support and migrated to a top-down system. That’s a strength and a weakness. Perhaps they will come to some good balance. Soon we will hear of the genius of Shuttleworth and how wonderful his products are on prime-time TV… It’s not the GNU/Linux I know but it works for some/many.

  53. Der Balrog wrote, “But at least they have Linux.”

    After oil and a fervent will to be independent of USA and her monopolists, Venezuela should count GNU/Linux as a huge asset. While USA is importing IT talent Venezuela is well on the way to being self-sufficient. Monopolists stifle initiative. FLOSS promotes initiative.

  54. AdmFubar says:

    if fud master miguel really believed his what he was saying…why did he choose another system built on free software…. i think now that linux is taking the lead the best m$ and their shills can hope for are second place. should be interesting to hear the fud from miguel about apple. 😛

  55. Dr Loser says:

    I love the sense of community and sharing and all-round humanity that you’re all projecting here …

    I’m trying to recall the last time an operating system became popular through infighting, mud-slinging, and a perpetual siege mentality (“them” versus “us”).

    No previous case springs to mind, I’m afraid. I’ve no idea why not.

  56. dougman says:

    Was Icaza behind Gnome 3 or was that other stupid developers?

  57. Der Balrog says:

    Der Balrog you also come in here with the ideology that Linux cannot get anywhere either. Lot of times without your facts in order.

    No, no ideology present here. I have never claimed that Linux — which I use at work, chuckle — can’t get anywhere. If anything I have claimed and claim that Linux can’t get anywhere if ideology is involved and if ideology becomes more important than getting it done.

    For example, look at how Ubuntu has become mired in ideological discussion. Recently, the Internet-connected scopes come to mind. The problem is that the majority of people attack Ubuntu precisely on the grounds of ideology (not withstanding the fact that many technical decisions of Ubuntu can be attacked on technical grounds). They don’t like that Ubuntu is doing something very bad in their opinion, without ever offering a basis for discussion as to why it is bad.

    Can you, by the way, see the hypocrisy involved when Valve’s Steam is praised over the moon by the “community”, while Ubuntu/Canonical is attacked by the same “community” for wanting to earn money, for being traitors to the cause?

  58. oiaohm says:

    Der Balrog
    –English is a hard language, isn’t it? De Icaza merely admits that his fervent ideology prevented him from having real freedom. The kind of freedom where your choices are not based on ideology (Stallman comes to mind), but based on what works best for you as a user.–

    No this is not it.
    –Even during all of my dogfooding and Linux advocacy days, whenever I had to recommend recommended a computer to a single new user, I recommended a Mac. And whenever I gave away computer gifts to friends and family, it was always a Mac. Linux just never managed to cross the desktop chasm.–

    Problem is this includes when he was one of the project leads for Gnome and in charge of marketing.

    Der Balrog how can you be marketing something and never recommend it to any body. Sorry he took a position in Gnome he should not have.

    The problem here is latter market pushes of Gnome also followed his lead.

    Who was the most vocal person against Gnome being a Distribution in its own right back in 2000. Miguel de Icaza

    Basically in my eyes good by to bad rubbish. It now makes way for more sane paths to be done forwards.

    This is the reality Der Balrog most of the fragmentation was accelerated by how Miguel de Icaza has done stuff.

    Now maybe https://live.gnome.org/GnomeOS/ can get over the fact that they cannot make a OS in there own right.

    KDE has there own OS frame in there own right. http://plasma-active.org/

    Der Balrog its not my lack of english here is the problem. Its you lack of knowledge of what actions Miguel de Icaza has done that has left scares in the Gnome project that prevent it from from being a possible unity point. The big problem with Miguel has been lets blame distrobutions for fragmenting under us. Gnome has always been lets hand this to Distribution then complain when they modify it the wrong way.

    KDE has always provided reference implementations.

    Der Balrog basically I am happy Miguel is stated what he as. Now is following inside gnome can break up. This will let better people into positions.

    Der Balrog by the way Robert and Me don’t see eye to eye all the time.

    I am using Linux because it suits what I do. The problem I have is people choose stuff without considering if they need it.

    Der Balrog you also come in here with the ideology that Linux cannot get anywhere either. Lot of times without your facts in order.

  59. Der Balrog says:

    Der Balrog the reality here is Miguel de Icaza now admits he did not personally believe in Gnome yet he took the lead guide and advocacy position of Gnome.

    English is a hard language, isn’t it? De Icaza merely admits that his fervent ideology prevented him from having real freedom. The kind of freedom where your choices are not based on ideology (Stallman comes to mind), but based on what works best for you as a user.

    If you’re using Linux out of some sort of obligation forced on you by ideology then you’re an idiot. Hence this blog in which Pogson constantly attempts to assure himself that Linux is the absolute best choice for everything and everyone.

  60. Der Balrog says:

    Pogson, I overlooked this gem of yours:

    Sure, and everyone with a ThinkPad™ has a bunch of problems with GNU/Linux…

    Actually not. Lenovo makes every ThinkPad Linux-compatible.

    With this statement you’ve destroyed your own basis for ranting against Windows. Because every OEM supports Windows, every computer of every OEM is Windows-compatible. Therefore, per definitionem — per your definitionem — no one has problems with Windows.

    Nice. Thanks for confirming that, Pogson.

    You really should consider the implications of what you write before you post it. But that’s a thing that doesn’t come easy to ideologues.

  61. oiaohm says:

    Der Balrog there is a problem. Miguel de Icaza. Is a very much a legacy item.

    Miguel de Icaza was one of the major forces in the Gnome vs KDE battle.

    At times over Mono performance statements Miguel has been pulled up.

    Miguel de Icaza statement there gets better.

    http://www.zdnet.com/linus-torvalds-on-the-linux-desktops-popularity-problems-7000003641/

    Really was the blog post really needed. He had told us before that he had moved to OS X.

    Der Balrog the reality here is Miguel de Icaza now admits he did not personally believe in Gnome yet he took the lead guide and advocacy position of Gnome.

    Good riddance Miguel de Icaza now the project leads can stop having to ask what would Miguel de Icaza do. He never believed in the project so do what you believe is in the interest of end users.

    Next question if Miguel de Icaza does not believe in Gnome. Does he also believe in the Mono product he is pushing now. Or is this another case of him being two faced.

  62. Der Balrog says:

    By the way, good riddance to Hugo Chavez. He was a demagogue like you, and now Venezuela is standing on the precipice of chaos. But at least they have Linux. Chuckle!

  63. Der Balrog says:

    So, he is not speaking for himself. He is lying and spreading FUD.

    For you everyone who has only a slightly dissenting opinion when it comes to Linux spreads lies and FUD. So why I should I take seriously your diatribe? On top of irrational Microsoft and Apple hate one can’t build rational arguments. You’re a good example.

    Isn’t there this well-known joke?

    A mathematician, an engineer, and a logician are travelling on a train through Wales. They pass by a field with a black sheep in it.

    Engineer – Ah! All sheep in Wales are black.
    Mathematician – No. Some Welsh sheep are black.
    Logician. – There is at least one sheep in Wales which is black on at least one side.

    Of course, you could never be so humble. Or even question your own knowledge. You have absolute knowledge. And absolute judgment. And absolute moral bearings. And you don’t realize that you’re merely mistaking your personal opinions for them.

  64. “Good riddance” is right. His FUD and pushing Mono have damaged Linux—and he is a Microsoft MVP after all—I’m surprised he didn’t get an Ultrabook running Windows 8!

  65. Der Balrog wrote, “De Icaza merely speaks for himself in his blog post”.

    Sure, and everyone with a ThinkPadTM has a bunch of problems with GNU/Linux…

    Actually not. Lenovo makes every ThinkPad Linux-compatible.

    “Products certified for use with Linux
    Lenovo 3000
    ThinkPad
    Netvista
    ThinkCentre
    ThinkStation”

    So, he is not speaking for himself. He is lying and spreading FUD. At the last place I worked we had a bunch of Lenovo systems come in and there was not a single problem with them and GNU/Linux. That other OS on the other had could not print to several of our older printers… MacOS doesn’t even try to work with random hardware. Apple calls that a feature.

    PS: See also The Register’s take on this blessed event. Note the comments.

  66. Der Balrog says:

    De Icaza’s comments are personal. At no point does he state that his post has some sort of evangelizing character. Yet you jump on it to claim exactly that. De Icaza merely speaks for himself in his blog post. But you deliberately ignore that and distort what he wrote to mark him as a traitor. What’s more, while de Icaza speaks for himself only, you on the other hand feel once again compelled to elevate your own personal experiences to general fact.

    This only shows that for you hypocrisy is a basal state of existence.

    You say it’s choice you want. But you really don’t want it. Because choice means that someone could choose what’d be detrimental to your own agenda. Your whole train of thought is more in line with a people’s dictatorship where eventually a dictatorial regime has to emerge whose task it is to forcibly maintain “freedom” by forcing everyone to use free software, therefore eliminating choice. What a grand dystopian vision!

Leave a Reply