Funkenbusch - proven liar, fud spreader and microsoft ass licker - Linux

This is a discussion on Funkenbusch - proven liar, fud spreader and microsoft ass licker - Linux ; -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 04:23:54 -0000, Tim Smith wrote: > On 2007-12-21, Roy Schestowitz wrote: >> Seattle Area Bloggers Needed for Microsoft User Research Study >> >> ,----[ Quote ] >>| For your ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 86

Thread: Funkenbusch - proven liar, fud spreader and microsoft ass licker

  1. Re: Why does Roy ignore IBM?

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    Hash: SHA1

    On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 04:23:54 -0000,
    Tim Smith wrote:
    > On 2007-12-21, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
    >> Seattle Area Bloggers Needed for Microsoft User Research Study
    >>
    >> ,----[ Quote ]
    >>| For your participation, we'll give you your choice of retail
    >>| software and hardware from our extensive list. Current titles
    >>| include the latest Xbox, Xbox 360, and PC games, keyboards,
    >>| Microsoft Office, Windows, productivity software and much more.
    >> `----

    >
    > How come you NEVER object when IBM or Sun or Apple do this?



    Have you objected when MS does it ?

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

    iD8DBQFHbDimd90bcYOAWPYRAizSAJ9z/87o2iKcO73Jrr1S2WOMxferTQCeKl7e
    vcFlJXsYgbie/fBNtc7Vh1w=
    =BufH
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

    --
    Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
    I'd explain it all to you, but your brain would explode.

  2. Re: Funkenbusch - proven liar, fud spreader and microsoft ass licker

    On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 11:44:46 -0800, Jim Richardson wrote:

    > Erik has also made the claim that no OS (or was it computer in the
    > general sense? can't recall for sure) is any less, or more
    > secure, than any other.
    >
    > When asked if that meant that Vista was no more secure than dos, he was
    > silent.


    Bull. You like to twist arguments and put words in peoples mouths. For
    instance, earlier this year we had an argument about supposed NSA backdoors
    in Vista. It was argued that having source would make such things
    impossible. I argued that having source did not make such things
    impossible. You countered back claiming I said having source made it
    harder to find back doors, something I didn't say, then you kept repeating
    it.

    What you take for "dishonesty" is your own warped and twisted
    interpretation of things.

    I, on several occasions, said pointedly that my claims included Microsoft
    software, including Vista. But you, in your fantasy world of beliving what
    you WANT your opponents to have said can't see that. In fact, I know you
    know I said it, because you responded to me.

    http://groups.google.com/group/comp....c33668f58107a5

    Jim Richardson
    >>> I loved your claim that no computer was more secure than another, thius
    >>> proving that Windows Vista is no more secure than Win3.1


    Erik Funkenbusch
    >> That's completely true.


    Jim Richardson
    >No, your claim is ludicrous, humourous, but ludicrous.


    So now, who's being dishonest?

    > I said dishonest, and it's a lot broader category than simple lies.
    >
    > Erik deliberatly miscontrues, implies, and scatters fud. He's dishonest,
    > but he rarely outright lies in any way that has objective evidence.


    This coming from the guy that twists comments, completely makes things up
    out of thin air and implies his opponent says them, and who, like above,
    keeps repeating falsehoods.

    > Or he's an idiot with little understanding of computers, and a poor
    > command of english, which I don't believe is the case.


    I could say the same about you.

  3. Re: Funkenbusch - proven liar, fud spreader and microsoft ass licker

    On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 11:03:30 -0600, chrisv wrote:

    >>> Is security really binary, Erik?

    >>
    >>In my opinion, yes.

    >
    > I say you're lying. No one in their right mind could honestly believe
    > that.


    So, stating my opinion is lying. Nice job there, moron.

    >>> Does it really take Dell "thousands of man hours" to develop the
    >>> manufacturing process for a PC that has, for example, a harddrive
    >>> loaded with Linux instead of Windows?

    >>
    >>Yes, it does.

    >
    > Lie. Documented.


    Then provide the documentation.

    >>That's why Dell only offers Linux on select models in select
    >>configurations. 1000 man hours is only 10 people working for 2.5 weeks.
    >>You find that hard to believe?

    >
    > I find it impossible to believe, you bald-faced liar.
    >
    > It's a different hard drive. It bolts-in the same as any other
    > harddrive. There is no difference in the manufacturing process. It's
    > simply a different part number on the BOM. You fsckwitted, lying,
    > FUD'ing troll.
    >
    > "Thousands of man hours" indeed. LOL


    Uhh.. what? You seem to not understand what developing a manufacturing
    process is. Do you think hard drives just mysteriously appear out of thin
    air with whole OS configurations on them? No. Someone has to create the
    base image, and base images are chosen carefully and much time is spent
    deciding which options to include.

    I suppose you think Dell just dumps a default Red Hat configuration on the
    disk and says "There, we're done". That's not how it works.

    >>> The dishonest FUD and lies from you are almost endless.

    >>
    >>Sounds more like your claims of my lies to me.

    >
    > See above, liar.


    You should really seek help for that condition.

  4. Re: Funkenbusch - proven liar, fud spreader and microsoft ass licker

    On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 11:20:52 -0600, chrisv wrote:

    > Fuddie wrote:
    >
    >>> Does it really take Dell "thousands of man hours" to develop the
    >>> manufacturing process for a PC that has, for example, a harddrive
    >>> loaded with Linux instead of Windows?

    >>
    >>Yes, it does. That's why Dell only offers Linux on select models in select
    >>configurations.

    >
    > Oh, I should have addressed Erik's LIE above.
    >
    > No, that's NOT "why Dell only offers Linux on select models", you
    > dumb****. That's a design/support decision, restricting Linux to
    > hardware that in Linux-friendly, and has got NOTHING to do with the
    > manufacturing process.
    >
    > Sheesh, you are a brain-damaged twit, Erik.


    Dude. Are you stupid? design and support decisions are *PART* of
    developing the manufacturing process.

  5. Re: Funkenbusch - proven liar, fud spreader and microsoft ass licker

    On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 18:39:35 +0000, William Poaster wrote:

    > On Friday 21 Dec 2007 2:25 pm, chrisv wrote in comp.os.linux.advocacy:
    >
    >> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
    >>
    >>>By all means. Please show all these "proven lies". You won't find any.

    >>
    >> LOL
    >>
    >> Is security really binary, Erik?
    >>
    >> Does it really take Dell "thousands of man hours" to develop the
    >> manufacturing process for a PC that has, for example, a harddrive
    >> loaded with Linux instead of Windows?
    >>
    >> The dishonest FUD and lies from you are almost endless.

    >
    > And what about using MS TT fonts on Linux?


    I said i've made mistakes.

    > And just *how* did the Morris worm spread by email?


    I still maintain that it did. That is my opinion. Yours is different,
    because you don't want to believe so. My opinion is that if it spreads the
    the use of an email system, it spreads by email, regardless of what vector
    is used.

    > And *here's* a lie that he was caught in: What about the "thousands of root
    > exploits per month" he claimed, & was then found to be making it all up? Or
    > does he deny that, & we probably all dreamt it?


    Again, I made a mistake, and I admitted it, but you can't let it go, and
    continue to call me a "liar" about it. That's your own pig headedness.

  6. Re: Funkenbusch - proven liar, fud spreader and microsoft ass licker

    Erik Funkenbusch wrote:

    > On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 18:39:35 +0000, William Poaster wrote:
    >
    >> On Friday 21 Dec 2007 2:25 pm, chrisv wrote in comp.os.linux.advocacy:
    >>
    >>> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>By all means. Please show all these "proven lies". You won't find any.
    >>>
    >>> LOL
    >>>
    >>> Is security really binary, Erik?
    >>>
    >>> Does it really take Dell "thousands of man hours" to develop the
    >>> manufacturing process for a PC that has, for example, a harddrive
    >>> loaded with Linux instead of Windows?
    >>>
    >>> The dishonest FUD and lies from you are almost endless.

    >>
    >> And what about using MS TT fonts on Linux?

    >
    > I said i've made mistakes.


    Nope, Erik. You have *repeated* "mistakes"
    Translation: You were FUDding

    >
    >> And just *how* did the Morris worm spread by email?

    >
    > I still maintain that it did. That is my opinion.


    Well, then you will have no problems supplying at least *one* email
    containing it, will you?

    > Yours is different,
    > because you don't want to believe so. My opinion is that if it spreads
    > the the use of an email system, it spreads by email, regardless of what
    > vector is used.


    Idiot

    >> And *here's* a lie that he was caught in: What about the "thousands of
    >> root exploits per month" he claimed, & was then found to be making it all
    >> up? Or does he deny that, & we probably all dreamt it?

    >
    > Again, I made a mistake, and I admitted it, but you can't let it go, and
    > continue to call me a "liar" about it. That's your own pig headedness.


    Nope, Erik, you *repeated* it. You went from "dozens" to "half a dozen".
    In reality, it was not a "dozen", and it was not "half a dozen". It was not
    even "two"

    You simply failed to do even basic checking of your claim. That is not a
    mistake (because you got called on it at once), it was *lying* pure and
    simple. You made up a number out of full cloth, and then repeated making up
    numbers.
    --
    Windows: Because everyone needs a good laugh!


  7. Re: Why does Roy ignore IBM?

    In article <6upt35-a1r.ln1@dragon.myth>,
    Jim Richardson wrote:
    > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    > Hash: SHA1
    >
    > On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 04:23:54 -0000,
    > Tim Smith wrote:
    > > On 2007-12-21, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
    > >> Seattle Area Bloggers Needed for Microsoft User Research Study
    > >>
    > >> ,----[ Quote ]
    > >>| For your participation, we'll give you your choice of retail
    > >>| software and hardware from our extensive list. Current titles
    > >>| include the latest Xbox, Xbox 360, and PC games, keyboards,
    > >>| Microsoft Office, Windows, productivity software and much more.
    > >> `----

    > >
    > > How come you NEVER object when IBM or Sun or Apple do this?

    >
    >
    > Have you objected when MS does it ?


    Since I don't have a problem with IBM or Sun or Apple doing usability
    studies on new software, why would I object when MS does usability
    studies? Do you have a problem with usability studies?

    Objecting to something that no rational person can have a reason to
    object to is a Roy thing.

    --
    --Tim Smith

  8. Re: Funkenbusch - proven liar, fud spreader and microsoft ass licker

    On Friday 21 Dec 2007 10:44 pm, Peter Köhlmann wrote in comp.os.linux.advocacy:

    > Erik Funkenbusch wrote:




    > You simply failed to do even basic checking of your claim. That is not a
    > mistake (because you got called on it at once), it was *lying* pure and
    > simple. You made up a number out of full cloth, and then repeated making up
    > numbers.


    Exactly, he LIED.

    Funny how he said: Please show all these "proven lies".....and when shown them,
    he dances about & changes the 'goalposts' saying they were 'mistakes'. There is
    a difference between making a mistake, & repeating the same mistake over & over
    without checking the claim, or backing the claim up. THAT is lying.

    --
    Operating systems: FreeBSD 6.2 (64bit), PC-BSD 1.4,
    Testing: FreeBSD 7.0-BETA 3
    Linux systems: Kubuntu 7.10 "Gutsy" amd64,
    Debian 4.0, PCLinuxOS 2007.

  9. Re: Funkenbusch - proven liar, fud spreader and microsoft ass licker

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    Hash: SHA1

    On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 17:21:06 -0500,
    Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
    > On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 11:44:46 -0800, Jim Richardson wrote:
    >
    >> Erik has also made the claim that no OS (or was it computer in the
    >> general sense? can't recall for sure) is any less, or more
    >> secure, than any other.
    >>
    >> When asked if that meant that Vista was no more secure than dos, he was
    >> silent.

    >
    > Bull. You like to twist arguments and put words in peoples mouths. For
    > instance, earlier this year we had an argument about supposed NSA backdoors
    > in Vista. It was argued that having source would make such things
    > impossible. I argued that having source did not make such things
    > impossible. You countered back claiming I said having source made it
    > harder to find back doors, something I didn't say, then you kept repeating
    > it.
    >


    No Erik, that's *you* putting words in my mouth.


    from Message-ID:



    Erik Funkenbusch wrote:

    > On Tue, 16 Jan 2007 20:39:24 -0800, Jim Richardson wrote:


    >>> I'm not ignoring the source code. I'm telling yout hat the source
    >>> code doesn't matter with a sophistaced enough aproach.


    >> we aren't jsust discussing one approach, we are discussing the whole
    >> gamut, and having the source code is an advantage, not a detriment.
    >> Even with a "sophisticated" approach.


    > No, we're not. We're specifically discussing the case of the NSA
    > inserting back doors into an OS. Not "the whole gamut".


    and in no way does having the source, make it *more* difficult to find
    than not having the source. If you are worried that the source might
    confuse you, don't read it. You have that option, but you don't have the
    option of reading it, if you don't have it.





    > What you take for "dishonesty" is your own warped and twisted
    > interpretation of things.
    >
    > I, on several occasions, said pointedly that my claims included Microsoft
    > software, including Vista. But you, in your fantasy world of beliving what
    > you WANT your opponents to have said can't see that. In fact, I know you
    > know I said it, because you responded to me.
    >
    > http://groups.google.com/group/comp....c33668f58107a5
    >
    > Jim Richardson
    >>>> I loved your claim that no computer was more secure than another, thius
    >>>> proving that Windows Vista is no more secure than Win3.1

    >
    > Erik Funkenbusch
    >>> That's completely true.

    >
    > Jim Richardson
    >>No, your claim is ludicrous, humourous, but ludicrous.

    >
    > So now, who's being dishonest?
    >



    thanks! I had forgotton that gem.

    Erik, the guy who thinks vista is no more secure than win3.11

    I retract that part of my claim, thanks for the correction.

    >> I said dishonest, and it's a lot broader category than simple lies.
    >>
    >> Erik deliberatly miscontrues, implies, and scatters fud. He's dishonest,
    >> but he rarely outright lies in any way that has objective evidence.

    >
    > This coming from the guy that twists comments, completely makes things up
    > out of thin air and implies his opponent says them, and who, like above,
    > keeps repeating falsehoods.
    >


    no, this from a guy who makes errors, and corrects them when I find
    them.

    What have I "made up out of thin air?"




    >> Or he's an idiot with little understanding of computers, and a poor
    >> command of english, which I don't believe is the case.

    >
    > I could say the same about you.


    lame, at least come up with a better comeback.


    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

    iD8DBQFHbFlrd90bcYOAWPYRArD/AKCeMhpgijjLLaVPY7EYoHVEdciSCwCePWmp
    miSY4rTo74vcsoVePfndiSE=
    =UNdq
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

    --
    Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
    Televangelists: The Pro Wrestlers of Religion

  10. Re: Funkenbusch - proven liar, fud spreader and microsoft ass licker

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    Hash: SHA1

    On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 17:31:38 -0500,
    Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
    > On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 18:39:35 +0000, William Poaster wrote:
    >
    >> On Friday 21 Dec 2007 2:25 pm, chrisv wrote in comp.os.linux.advocacy:
    >>
    >>> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>By all means. Please show all these "proven lies". You won't find any.
    >>>
    >>> LOL
    >>>
    >>> Is security really binary, Erik?
    >>>
    >>> Does it really take Dell "thousands of man hours" to develop the
    >>> manufacturing process for a PC that has, for example, a harddrive
    >>> loaded with Linux instead of Windows?
    >>>
    >>> The dishonest FUD and lies from you are almost endless.

    >>
    >> And what about using MS TT fonts on Linux?

    >
    > I said i've made mistakes.
    >



    when did you aknowledge your claim that it was not legal to use
    msttcorefonts package on non MS systems was in error?

    >> And just *how* did the Morris worm spread by email?

    >
    > I still maintain that it did. That is my opinion. Yours is different,
    > because you don't want to believe so. My opinion is that if it spreads the
    > the use of an email system, it spreads by email, regardless of what vector
    > is used.
    >
    >> And *here's* a lie that he was caught in: What about the "thousands of root
    >> exploits per month" he claimed, & was then found to be making it all up? Or
    >> does he deny that, & we probably all dreamt it?

    >
    > Again, I made a mistake, and I admitted it, but you can't let it go, and
    > continue to call me a "liar" about it. That's your own pig headedness.


    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

    iD8DBQFHbFm8d90bcYOAWPYRAq/4AKDTN2UKJgufJVngpUgDej1xWJSbmQCfeJci
    zkMS08JvrElmHds7E5fArSE=
    =H+cZ
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

    --
    Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
    Balance the budget. Declare politicions a game species and sell hunting
    stamps.

  11. Re: Why does Roy ignore IBM?

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    Hash: SHA1

    On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 14:05:26 -0800,
    Jim Richardson wrote:
    >
    > On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 04:23:54 -0000,
    > Tim Smith wrote:
    >> On 2007-12-21, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
    >>> Seattle Area Bloggers Needed for Microsoft User Research Study
    >>>
    >>> ,----[ Quote ]
    >>>| For your participation, we'll give you your choice of retail
    >>>| software and hardware from our extensive list. Current titles
    >>>| include the latest Xbox, Xbox 360, and PC games, keyboards,
    >>>| Microsoft Office, Windows, productivity software and much more.
    >>> `----

    >>
    >> How come you NEVER object when IBM or Sun or Apple do this?

    >
    >
    > Have you objected when MS does it ?
    >
    >


    it's not the study that's being objected to, is my impression from the
    post, but the payment for it.



    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

    iD8DBQFHbFuMd90bcYOAWPYRAoYfAKCHP1TgFFKqwLlH92gMx8 RRcT/5NQCfQln8
    qoYuUqyY6RjU/IsY7ZhPbkw=
    =pS2j
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

    --
    Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
    "And the faults in bad software can be so subtle as to be practically
    theological."
    - Bruce Sterling - The Hacker Crackdown

  12. Re: Funkenbusch - proven liar, fud spreader and microsoft ass licker

    In article ,
    Peter Kohlmann wrote:
    > >> And *here's* a lie that he was caught in: What about the "thousands of
    > >> root exploits per month" he claimed, & was then found to be making it all
    > >> up? Or does he deny that, & we probably all dreamt it?

    > >
    > > Again, I made a mistake, and I admitted it, but you can't let it go, and
    > > continue to call me a "liar" about it. That's your own pig headedness.

    >
    > Nope, Erik, you *repeated* it. You went from "dozens" to "half a dozen".
    > In reality, it was not a "dozen", and it was not "half a dozen". It was not
    > even "two"
    >
    > You simply failed to do even basic checking of your claim. That is not a
    > mistake (because you got called on it at once), it was *lying* pure and
    > simple. You made up a number out of full cloth, and then repeated making up
    > numbers.


    So how many root exploits per month do you claim there are?


    --
    --Tim Smith

  13. Re: Funkenbusch - proven liar, fud spreader and microsoft ass licker

    Tim Smith wrote:

    > In article ,
    > Peter Kohlmann wrote:
    >> >> And *here's* a lie that he was caught in: What about the "thousands of
    >> >> root exploits per month" he claimed, & was then found to be making it
    >> >> all up? Or does he deny that, & we probably all dreamt it?
    >> >
    >> > Again, I made a mistake, and I admitted it, but you can't let it go,
    >> > and
    >> > continue to call me a "liar" about it. That's your own pig headedness.

    >>
    >> Nope, Erik, you *repeated* it. You went from "dozens" to "half a dozen".
    >> In reality, it was not a "dozen", and it was not "half a dozen". It was
    >> not even "two"
    >>
    >> You simply failed to do even basic checking of your claim. That is not a
    >> mistake (because you got called on it at once), it was *lying* pure and
    >> simple. You made up a number out of full cloth, and then repeated making
    >> up numbers.

    >
    > So how many root exploits per month do you claim there are?
    >


    Ask Erik

    --
    You're not my type. For that matter, you're not even my species


  14. Re: Why does Roy ignore IBM?

    In article ,
    Jim Richardson wrote:
    > it's not the study that's being objected to, is my impression from the
    > post, but the payment for it.


    But it is only being objected to when MS does it, not when Sun or IBM or
    Apple do it. It's perfectly normal to give the participants in a
    usability study (or pretty much any other kind of study that takes more
    than a few minutes time and is done at your facility) some freebies,
    such as software.

    This is simply another example of Roy purposefully being misleading
    about Microsoft. He posts a few links arguing that they improperly have
    paid people, and then he throws in that story, about a usability study
    for some software related to blogging, and does it such a way as to try
    to give the impression that it means MS is bribing bloggers to control
    their writing.

    He does this a lot--put one or two articles in a post that support his
    point, and then throw in others that have nothing to do with it, but
    that, by careful manipulation, will LOOK like they do if you just skim
    past them (which is what most people will do). The result is that the
    reader that doesn't actually check everything out will get the
    impression that Roy has many references backing up his point, when in
    fact he has one or two, at most.

    --
    --Tim Smith

  15. Re: Funkenbusch - proven liar, fud spreader and microsoft ass licker

    On 2007-12-21, Erik Funkenbusch claimed:
    > On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 11:44:46 -0800, Jim Richardson wrote:
    >
    >> Erik has also made the claim that no OS (or was it computer in the
    >> general sense? can't recall for sure) is any less, or more
    >> secure, than any other.
    >>
    >> When asked if that meant that Vista was no more secure than dos, he was
    >> silent.

    >
    > Bull. You like to twist arguments and put words in peoples mouths. For
    > instance, earlier this year we had an argument about supposed NSA backdoors
    > in Vista. It was argued that having source would make such things
    > impossible. I argued that having source did not make such things
    > impossible. You countered back claiming I said having source made it
    > harder to find back doors, something I didn't say, then you kept repeating
    > it.


    Pot, kettle, so on, so forth.

    The closest I can find to your claim that someone said it would be
    impossible to hide backdoors in the source, is your claim above. I find
    in the google search here:

    http://groups.google.com/groups?as_q...=2007&safe=off

    Both of those look like you're putting words in the mouth of someone.

    In the first case I see someone willing to make a wager based on
    certain parameters (Debian, main stable, etc) not having back doors.
    This is in an argument about the existence of back doors in Windows. I
    see no mention of anyone claiming that back doors are impossible. If
    I'm wrong, please show me the message and context.

    The second link follows sort of the same angle: you jumping to
    conclusions and reading words that aren't there. Again, I'll take your
    correction if you can find one.

    Of course, you never lie. So when you bring this up again in the future
    it will just be a mistake to which you can admit you're wrong. Any
    number of times. Right?

    --
    Medical science *still* cannot cure stupidity.

  16. Re: Why does Roy ignore IBM?

    * Tim Smith fired off this tart reply:

    >> >> Seattle Area Bloggers Needed for Microsoft User Research Study
    >> >>
    >> >> ,----[ Quote ]
    >> >>| For your participation, we'll give you your choice of retail
    >> >>| software and hardware from our extensive list....
    >> >> `----

    >>

    > Since I don't have a problem with IBM or Sun or Apple doing usability
    > studies on new software, why would I object when MS does usability
    > studies? Do you have a problem with usability studies?
    >
    > Objecting to something that no rational person can have a reason to
    > object to is a Roy thing.


    Actually, I feel I'm rational, and I have an objection. Combining this

    >> Seattle Area Bloggers Needed for Microsoft User Research Study


    with this

    > studies? ... usability studies?


    raises the hairs on my back. I don't care who does it, it is not a
    valid study to have "Seattle Area Bloggers" getting goodies for using a
    product.

    --
    Tux rox!

  17. Re: Why does Roy ignore IBM?

    In article ,
    Linonut wrote:
    > Actually, I feel I'm rational, and I have an objection. Combining this
    >
    > >> Seattle Area Bloggers Needed for Microsoft User Research Study

    >
    > with this
    >
    > > studies? ... usability studies?

    >
    > raises the hairs on my back. I don't care who does it, it is not a
    > valid study to have "Seattle Area Bloggers" getting goodies for using a
    > product.


    Why not? You want people to come down to your office, try out some new
    software for a couple hours while you have people watch them do it and
    take notes, and then you want them to answer questions about it
    afterwards, and you don't want to give them some freebies for their time?

    Here's a description of the process:



    What's invalid about that?

    --
    --Tim Smith

  18. Re: Funkenbusch - proven liar, fud spreader and microsoft ass licker

    On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 20:58:42 -0600, Sinister Midget wrote:

    > On 2007-12-21, Erik Funkenbusch claimed:
    >> On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 11:44:46 -0800, Jim Richardson wrote:
    >>
    >>> Erik has also made the claim that no OS (or was it computer in the
    >>> general sense? can't recall for sure) is any less, or more
    >>> secure, than any other.
    >>>
    >>> When asked if that meant that Vista was no more secure than dos, he was
    >>> silent.

    >>
    >> Bull. You like to twist arguments and put words in peoples mouths. For
    >> instance, earlier this year we had an argument about supposed NSA backdoors
    >> in Vista. It was argued that having source would make such things
    >> impossible. I argued that having source did not make such things
    >> impossible. You countered back claiming I said having source made it
    >> harder to find back doors, something I didn't say, then you kept repeating
    >> it.

    >
    > Pot, kettle, so on, so forth.
    >
    > The closest I can find to your claim that someone said it would be
    > impossible to hide backdoors in the source, is your claim above. I find
    > in the google search here:
    >
    > http://groups.google.com/groups?as_q...=2007&safe=off
    >
    > Both of those look like you're putting words in the mouth of someone.


    http://groups.google.com/group/comp....56a1c7a5aca2a8

    "That's easy enough to check... just look at the source code. Hmm... Can't
    do that with windows though... closed source...."

    "easy enough to check, just look at the source". I don't know what that
    says to you, but it clearly says "You can find any backdoors the NSA might
    want to put in SELinux easily by "just look[ing] at the source".

    You can't make that statement unless you believe that merely "look[ing] at
    the source" will "easily" expose any back door that could be there. And if
    that's the case, you're saying that back doors can't be hidden when you
    have the source.

  19. Re: Funkenbusch - proven liar, fud spreader and microsoft ass licker

    On 2007-12-22, Jim Richardson claimed:
    >
    > On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 17:31:38 -0500,
    > Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
    >> On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 18:39:35 +0000, William Poaster wrote:


    >>> And what about using MS TT fonts on Linux?

    >>
    >> I said i've made mistakes.
    >>

    >
    >
    > when did you aknowledge your claim that it was not legal to use
    > msttcorefonts package on non MS systems was in error?


    Never. He's just making another "mistake" here.

    In this case the previous lie that he made a "mistake" about was that
    it was illegal to use MS fonts on linux. Which leads to the current
    lying "mistake" of claiming to have corrected himself on it.

    And this discussion will come up again, at which time he'll make both
    "mistakes" another time.

    --
    A husband who gets breakfast in bed is in the hospital.

  20. Re: Funkenbusch - proven liar, fud spreader and microsoft ass licker

    On 2007-12-22, Erik Funkenbusch claimed:
    > On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 20:58:42 -0600, Sinister Midget wrote:
    >
    >> On 2007-12-21, Erik Funkenbusch claimed:
    >>> On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 11:44:46 -0800, Jim Richardson wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> Erik has also made the claim that no OS (or was it computer in the
    >>>> general sense? can't recall for sure) is any less, or more
    >>>> secure, than any other.
    >>>>
    >>>> When asked if that meant that Vista was no more secure than dos, he was
    >>>> silent.
    >>>
    >>> Bull. You like to twist arguments and put words in peoples mouths. For
    >>> instance, earlier this year we had an argument about supposed NSA backdoors
    >>> in Vista. It was argued that having source would make such things
    >>> impossible. I argued that having source did not make such things
    >>> impossible. You countered back claiming I said having source made it
    >>> harder to find back doors, something I didn't say, then you kept repeating
    >>> it.

    >>
    >> Pot, kettle, so on, so forth.
    >>
    >> The closest I can find to your claim that someone said it would be
    >> impossible to hide backdoors in the source, is your claim above. I find
    >> in the google search here:
    >>
    >> http://groups.google.com/groups?as_q...=2007&safe=off
    >>
    >> Both of those look like you're putting words in the mouth of someone.

    >
    > http://groups.google.com/group/comp....56a1c7a5aca2a8
    >
    > "That's easy enough to check... just look at the source code. Hmm... Can't
    > do that with windows though... closed source...."
    >
    > "easy enough to check, just look at the source". I don't know what that
    > says to you, but it clearly says "You can find any backdoors the NSA might
    > want to put in SELinux easily by "just look[ing] at the source".
    >
    > You can't make that statement unless you believe that merely "look[ing] at
    > the source" will "easily" expose any back door that could be there. And if
    > that's the case, you're saying that back doors can't be hidden when you
    > have the source.


    IOW you decided to put words in the mouths of others.

    POT == KETTLE == ERIK

    --
    I come from a broken home. I'm the one who broke it.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 ... LastLast