Linux users named a 'cult' by savvy IT reporter - Linux

This is a discussion on Linux users named a 'cult' by savvy IT reporter - Linux ; Kier wrote: > eatfastnoodle wrote: >> Kier wrote: >>> eatfastnoodle wrote: >>> >>>> Yes, it's a religion. At least in term of the >>>> viciousness its members attack anything or anybody >>>> that's different from them. Anybody dares >>> >>> ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 21 to 33 of 33

Thread: Linux users named a 'cult' by savvy IT reporter

  1. Re: Linux users named a 'cult' by savvy IT reporter

    Kier wrote:
    > eatfastnoodle wrote:
    >> Kier wrote:
    >>> eatfastnoodle wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> Yes, it's a religion. At least in term of the
    >>>> viciousness its members attack anything or anybody
    >>>> that's different from them. Anybody dares
    >>>
    >>> A few extreme characters might be so, but that's not such
    >>> a surprise in any advocacy group, be it Linux, Mac or
    >>> Windows. And no, that doesn't make it a religion. A cause,
    >>> possibly, but there are many causes far more strident.
    >>>
    >>>> to criticize anything that has a open label attached to
    >>>> its chest will be verbally lynched in blogsphere, in
    >>>> newsgroup, in any nerd-gathering places. Regardless of
    >>>> the merit of criticism, we want open, we want choice,
    >>>> but we are willing to be nazi toward those who don't
    >>>> share our ideology.
    >>>
    >>> You may be. I'm not.

    >>
    >> Fundamentalist always consider themselves humanitarian. You
    >> are no exception.

    >
    > Nonsense. I am no 'cultist' or 'nazi', and I don't use Linux
    > for some religious reason. I like it, and find it better than
    > Windows. I also agree with many (though not all) of the ideals
    > of the FOSS community. But I wouldn't want to force it on
    > anyone who really doesn't want it. I just happen to think it's
    > by far the better OS.


    http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...3844-3,00.html

    "Microsoft Enjoys Monopoly Power..."
    Sunday, Nov. 07, 1999 By ADAM COHEN

    When Bill Gates was growing up, he and his family loved to play
    games, both intellectual and athletic. They were all competitive,
    but Bill most of all. "The play was serious," his father
    recalled. "Winning mattered." For Gates, business is a game, and
    what makes it superfun for him is that it's superserious. He is a
    brilliant strategist with great bandwidth, as they say in
    Redmond, and he works hard to hire the brightest, most dedicated
    and most competitive associates. He created an atmosphere at
    Microsoft in which crushing the other guy was a crusade.

    It was this Gatesean religion, this take-no-prisoners holy war,
    that got Microsoft in trouble with the antitrust division--and
    that runs as a leitmotif through Jackson's findings. But if
    Gates' character explains the past of this lawsuit, it may also
    foretell its future. Shortly after Gates hinted at settlement in
    his videotaped press release, he appeared at a press conference
    at Microsoft headquarters. This time he seemed more focused on
    winning--if not before Judge Jackson, then later.
    Microsoft is a religion, which is substantiated by our resident
    trolls. Just watch their attitudes when their lovely Windows
    operating systems are critiqued by advocates as found wanting.

    I do not consider Linux a religion, unless you consider this distro:

    http://www.devil-linux.org/sitetools/religion.php

    Why the Name Devil-Linux?

    Why did we chose this name ?

    Well, there is absolutely no relationship to "The Devil" or to BSD.

    Some history:

    When I decided to create my own Linux distribution I was
    discussing, with my friends and the people in my company, how I
    should name it. We didn't find a good name, so the first
    unofficial releases had the name "NoName-Linux". One day we
    (Michael Wahlbrink and me) discussed again about the name and he
    said: why not "Devil-Linux" ? I said: hmmmm, I like this name!
    But where the hell did you find this name? He said: Look on your
    T-Shirt! I had a T-Shirt from a German Linux Magazine and there
    was a Logo, like the BSD Devil, on it.

    So we decided to go with this name, that's all. ;-)
    --
    HPT

  2. Re: Linux users named a 'cult' by savvy IT reporter

    On Dec 24, 12:50*am, High Plains Thumper
    wrote:
    >
    > I do not consider Linux a religion, unless you consider this distro:
    >
    > http://www.devil-linux.org/sitetools/religion.php
    >
    > [quote]
    > Why the Name Devil-Linux?
    >


    Yeah I bet Devil Linux is loaded with spyware and all kinds of DRM.
    Watch out for release 666.

    I hope you realize by now I have little or no real interest in Linux,
    but am just playing Devil's Advocate. Though I might load Linux on
    that old machine if I can't get NT to run on it.

    Merry X-mas everybody...I'm eagerly awaiting my lump of coal under the
    mantle.

    RL

  3. Re: Linux users named a 'cult' by savvy IT reporter

    On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 23:10:17 -0500, DFS wrote:

    > Kier wrote:
    >
    >> First off, boyo, we are not Linux 'tards'.

    >
    > But you are: freetards.


    Nope. No kind of tard whatsoever.

    --
    Kier


  4. Re: Linux users named a 'cult' by savvy IT reporter

    On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 22:19:53 -0800, raylopez99 wrote:


    > I hope you realize by now I have little or no real interest in Linux,


    Then go away. We have enough idiots here trashing Linux day after day,
    without you adding another one.

    > but am just playing Devil's Advocate. Though I might load Linux on
    > that old machine if I can't get NT to run on it.


    Why bother? You'll just end up whining abut it here.

    --
    Kier

  5. Re: Linux users named a 'cult' by savvy IT reporter

    raylopez99 wrote:
    > High Plains Thumper wrote:
    >
    >> I do not consider Linux a religion, unless you consider this
    >> distro:
    >>
    >> http://www.devil-linux.org/sitetools/religion.php
    >>
    >> [quote] Why the Name Devil-Linux?

    >
    > Yeah I bet Devil Linux is loaded with spyware and all kinds of
    > DRM. Watch out for release 666.


    Oh, really? You must have a reading comprehension problem,
    because this is what it says:

    http://www.devil-linux.org/product/features.php

    [quotes]
    What makes Devil Linux the best Firewall on the market

    Devil-Linux is not like any other distribution. It is created
    from IT Administrators for IT Administrators. We know what you
    need, because we need it too!

    * No graphical desktop

    Devil-Linux has not support for i.e. X-Server. This greatly
    reduces the requirements to run DL and also greatly increases
    security by reducing the number of running programs. (Try this on
    Windows...)

    * Almost all binaries are compiled with the GCC Stack Smashing
    Protector

    Except of a very few exceptions, all binaries are compiled
    with the GCC Stack Smashing Protector. Applications written in C
    will be protected by the method that automatically inserts
    protection code into an application at compilation time. The
    protection is realized by buffer overflow detection and the
    variable reordering feature to avoid the corruption of pointers.

    * Improved Kernel Security through GRSecurity

    GRSecurity adds several new features and protection mechanisms
    to the Linux Kernel itself. This includes Chroot restrictions
    (did you know that it is easy to break out of a non-protected
    chroot jail?), Address space modification protection (like PAX),
    Auditing features, Randomization features and much more.

    Applications for Devil-Linux

    The traditional application for Devil-Linux is to use it as
    Router/Firewall. Below you see a list of other possible applications:

    * Proxy Server
    * DNS Server
    * Mail Server with TLS support and Spam and Virus filtering
    * HTTP Server
    * FTP Server
    * File Server
    * VPNs with X.509 support
    * DHCP Server
    * NTP Server
    * IDS Node
    [/quotes]

    If Linux were a religion, then this distro has Windows beat hands
    down.

    > I hope you realize by now I have little or no real interest in
    > Linux, but am just playing Devil's Advocate. Though I might
    > load Linux on that old machine if I can't get NT to run on it.


    You are doing a very poor job of playing Devil's Advocate. Why
    are you here?

    > Merry X-mas everybody...I'm eagerly awaiting my lump of coal
    > under the mantle.


    Merry Christmas to you too.

    --
    HPT

  6. Re: Linux users named a 'cult' by savvy IT reporter

    raylopez99 wrote:
    >
    > What will the closers of Linux do? They will disrupt the software
    > industry. They will put a generation of coders out of work. Most
    > importantly, they will decrease the stock price of MSFT, and as a
    > Microsoft shareholder I resent that.


    And we would have gotten away with it to if i wasn't for you kids
    and that dog! ... erhm, I mean, hah! Its too to late for you to
    stop our diabolical scheme of world domination. Soon, you will all
    willingly serve your new penguin masters! >

    > And what will we gain? Certainly not better code, certainly not fewer
    > viruses--to the contrary, more sloppy code and more viruses. Who do
    > you trust more: an amateur pilot who flies a few times a year and is
    > always a bit rusty, or a professional? And which code is easier to
    > insert a virus into: a closed binary executable that has been
    > scrambled prior to release so it's nearly impossible to follow the 1s
    > and 0s even if you decrypt it line by line, or, an open source, ASCII
    > text source code? Clearly the latter. The only reason Linux doesn't
    > have viruses is that the virus writers don't target it, since it has
    > such pathetic market share.


    Bla bla bla security through obscurity bla bla bla... the only
    problem with your argument is that every reputable security expert
    disagrees with you. This topic has been hashed out a million
    times on COLA and the wintrolls always try to excuse the failings
    of the proprietary model with the above argument. It is just as
    wrong now as it was all the other times.

    I don't know why I bother, but I'll explain it one more time for
    the new kids in the class. It is a fundamental rule of security
    practices that 'secrets are bad'; they make you vulnerable. The
    more dependent you are on a secret, the more vulnerable you are
    to it being compromised. If you must depend on a secret, it should
    be one that is easily replaced (like a password or encryption key).
    You should never depend on the secrecy of your encryption
    algorithms or source code to protect you, because software is
    more painful to replace than a password. Yes, this basically goes
    to the whole 'peer review' argument for open source code. Security
    is better when based on open, peer reviewed algorithms. It is best
    when implemented on open, peer reviewed code. In short, security
    through obscurity is almost no security at all.

    But hey, what do I know about it... I'm just a guy who handles
    security for major corporate networks and ISPs, a guy who has
    taught seminars on the the topic of Internet security and been
    a published author on the topic.

    Thad (yes, I am an arrogant bastard)
    --
    Yeah, I drank the Open Source cool-aid... Unlike the other brand, it had
    all the ingredients on the label.

  7. Re: Linux users named a 'cult' by savvy IT reporter

    On Monday 24 Dec 2007 1:03 pm, thad05@tux.glaci.delete-this.com wrote in
    comp.os.linux.advocacy:

    > raylopez99 wrote:
    >>
    >> What will the closers of Linux do? They will disrupt the software
    >> industry. They will put a generation of coders out of work. Most
    >> importantly, they will decrease the stock price of MSFT, and as a
    >> Microsoft shareholder I resent that.

    >
    > And we would have gotten away with it to if i wasn't for you kids
    > and that dog! ... erhm, I mean, hah! Its too to late for you to
    > stop our diabolical scheme of world domination. Soon, you will all
    > willingly serve your new penguin masters! >
    >
    >> And what will we gain? Certainly not better code, certainly not fewer
    >> viruses--to the contrary, more sloppy code and more viruses. Who do
    >> you trust more: an amateur pilot who flies a few times a year and is
    >> always a bit rusty, or a professional? And which code is easier to
    >> insert a virus into: a closed binary executable that has been
    >> scrambled prior to release so it's nearly impossible to follow the 1s
    >> and 0s even if you decrypt it line by line, or, an open source, ASCII
    >> text source code? Clearly the latter. The only reason Linux doesn't
    >> have viruses is that the virus writers don't target it, since it has
    >> such pathetic market share.


    Ah, the Dopez wintroll reiterating the "M$ Big Lie" which is "...if Linux or Mac
    OS X was as popular as Windows, there would be just as many viruses written for
    those platforms!", which has been debunked a 1,000 times or more.

    > Bla bla bla security through obscurity bla bla bla... the only
    > problem with your argument is that every reputable security expert
    > disagrees with you. This topic has been hashed out a million
    > times on COLA and the wintrolls always try to excuse the failings
    > of the proprietary model with the above argument. It is just as
    > wrong now as it was all the other times.


    It is. But the idiot wintrolls just repeat it like a mantra, hoping it will be
    true. Here's why it's NOT.
    http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/188

    Though I doubt the idiot trolls will bother reading it, or even understanding
    it.

    > I don't know why I bother, but I'll explain it one more time for
    > the new kids in the class. It is a fundamental rule of security
    > practices that 'secrets are bad'; they make you vulnerable. The
    > more dependent you are on a secret, the more vulnerable you are
    > to it being compromised. If you must depend on a secret, it should
    > be one that is easily replaced (like a password or encryption key).
    > You should never depend on the secrecy of your encryption
    > algorithms or source code to protect you, because software is
    > more painful to replace than a password. Yes, this basically goes
    > to the whole 'peer review' argument for open source code. Security
    > is better when based on open, peer reviewed algorithms. It is best
    > when implemented on open, peer reviewed code. In short, security
    > through obscurity is almost no security at all.
    >
    > But hey, what do I know about it... I'm just a guy who handles
    > security for major corporate networks and ISPs, a guy who has
    > taught seminars on the the topic of Internet security and been
    > a published author on the topic.
    >
    > Thad (yes, I am an arrogant bastard)


    Heh!

    --
    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.

  8. Re: Linux users named a 'cult' by savvy IT reporter

    On Monday 24 Dec 2007 12:15 pm, High Plains Thumper wrote in
    comp.os.linux.advocacy:

    > raylopez99 wrote:
    >> High Plains Thumper wrote:
    >>
    >>> I do not consider Linux a religion, unless you consider this
    >>> distro:
    >>>
    >>> http://www.devil-linux.org/sitetools/religion.php
    >>>
    >>> [quote] Why the Name Devil-Linux?

    >>
    >> Yeah I bet Devil Linux is loaded with spyware and all kinds of
    >> DRM. Watch out for release 666.

    >
    > Oh, really? You must have a reading comprehension problem,
    > because this is what it says:
    >
    > http://www.devil-linux.org/product/features.php
    >
    > [quotes]
    > What makes Devil Linux the best Firewall on the market
    >
    > Devil-Linux is not like any other distribution. It is created
    > from IT Administrators for IT Administrators. We know what you
    > need, because we need it too!
    >
    > * No graphical desktop
    >
    > Devil-Linux has not support for i.e. X-Server. This greatly
    > reduces the requirements to run DL and also greatly increases
    > security by reducing the number of running programs. (Try this on
    > Windows...)


    Why even Windoze Server 2003 has a GUI, as I don't suppose the windoze admins
    can set a server up without one.

    > * Almost all binaries are compiled with the GCC Stack Smashing
    > Protector
    >
    > Except of a very few exceptions, all binaries are compiled
    > with the GCC Stack Smashing Protector. Applications written in C
    > will be protected by the method that automatically inserts
    > protection code into an application at compilation time. The
    > protection is realized by buffer overflow detection and the
    > variable reordering feature to avoid the corruption of pointers.
    >
    > * Improved Kernel Security through GRSecurity
    >
    > GRSecurity adds several new features and protection mechanisms
    > to the Linux Kernel itself. This includes Chroot restrictions
    > (did you know that it is easy to break out of a non-protected
    > chroot jail?), Address space modification protection (like PAX),
    > Auditing features, Randomization features and much more.
    >
    > Applications for Devil-Linux
    >
    > The traditional application for Devil-Linux is to use it as
    > Router/Firewall. Below you see a list of other possible applications:
    >
    > * Proxy Server
    > * DNS Server
    > * Mail Server with TLS support and Spam and Virus filtering
    > * HTTP Server
    > * FTP Server
    > * File Server
    > * VPNs with X.509 support
    > * DHCP Server
    > * NTP Server
    > * IDS Node
    > [/quotes]
    >
    > If Linux were a religion, then this distro has Windows beat hands
    > down.
    >
    >> I hope you realize by now I have little or no real interest in
    >> Linux, but am just playing Devil's Advocate. Though I might
    >> load Linux on that old machine if I can't get NT to run on it.

    >
    > You are doing a very poor job of playing Devil's Advocate. Why
    > are you here?
    >
    >> Merry X-mas everybody...I'm eagerly awaiting my lump of coal
    >> under the mantle.

    >
    > Merry Christmas to you too.
    >


    --
    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: Linux users named a 'cult' by savvy IT reporter

    * thad05@tux.glaci.delete-this.com fired off this tart reply:

    > In short, security through obscurity is almost no security at all.
    >
    > But hey, what do I know about it... I'm just a guy who handles
    > security for major corporate networks and ISPs, a guy who has
    > taught seminars on the the topic of Internet security and been
    > a published author on the topic.
    >
    > Thad (yes, I am an arrogant bastard)


    It ain't arrogant if you are right, and you are.

    As long as you don't rub faces in it. Ah what the heck, they're only
    trolls.

    --
    Tux rox!

  10. Re: Linux users named a 'cult' by savvy IT reporter

    raylopez99 wrote:

    > Most importantly, they will decrease the stock price of MSFT, and as a
    > Microsoft shareholder I resent that.


    May you end up living in a cardboard box, pissnose.
    --
    Regards,
    [tv]

    ....Police toilets stolen! Officers have nothing to go on!

    Owner and proprietor, Trollus Amongus, LLC

  11. Re: Linux users named a 'cult' by savvy IT reporter

    William Poaster wrote:
    > High Plains Thumper:
    >> raylopez99 wrote:
    >>> High Plains Thumper wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> I do not consider Linux a religion, unless you consider
    >>>> this distro:
    >>>>
    >>>> http://www.devil-linux.org/sitetools/religion.php
    >>>>
    >>>> [quote] Why the Name Devil-Linux?
    >>>
    >>> Yeah I bet Devil Linux is loaded with spyware and all
    >>> kinds of DRM. Watch out for release 666.

    >>
    >> Oh, really? You must have a reading comprehension problem,
    >> because this is what it says:
    >>
    >> http://www.devil-linux.org/product/features.php
    >>
    >> [quotes] What makes Devil Linux the best Firewall on the
    >> market
    >>
    >> Devil-Linux is not like any other distribution. It is
    >> created from IT Administrators for IT Administrators. We
    >> know what you need, because we need it too!
    >>
    >> * No graphical desktop
    >>
    >> Devil-Linux has not support for i.e. X-Server. This greatly
    >> reduces the requirements to run DL and also greatly
    >> increases security by reducing the number of running
    >> programs. (Try this on Windows...)

    >
    > Why even Windoze Server 2003 has a GUI, as I don't suppose the
    > windoze admins can set a server up without one.


    Seeing our resident trolls have a reading comprehension problem,
    I seriously doubt they would know how to work a text based
    interface, even if it is Windows "Command Prompt". :-)

    --
    HPT

  12. Re: Linux users named a 'cult' by savvy IT reporter

    High Plains Thumper espoused:
    > Kier wrote:
    >> High Plains Thumper wrote:
    >>> Kier wrote:
    >>>> eatfastnoodle wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> Yes, it's a religion. At least in term of the
    >>>>> viciousness its members attack anything or anybody
    >>>>> that's different from them. Anybody dares
    >>>>
    >>>> A few extreme characters might be so, but that's not such
    >>>> a surprise in any advocacy group, be it Linux, Mac or
    >>>> Windows. And no, that doesn't make it a religion. A cause,
    >>>> possibly, but there are many causes far more strident.
    >>>>
    >>>>> to criticize anything that has a open label attached to
    >>>>> its chest will be verbally lynched in blogsphere, in
    >>>>> newsgroup, in any nerd-gathering places. Regardless of
    >>>>> the merit of criticism, we want open, we want choice,
    >>>>> but we are willing to be nazi toward those who don't
    >>>>> share our ideology.
    >>>> You may be. I'm not.
    >>>
    >>> It concerns me when someone comes with vague accusations
    >>> without specific examples. Such is definitely not
    >>> expressions or supporting expressions or related to
    >>> comradery support of this newgroup's charter, "For
    >>> discussion of the benefits of Linux compared to other
    >>> operating systems." (Ref.
    >>> http://www.faqs.org/faqs/linux/advocacy/faq-and-primer/ and
    >>> Paragraph 1.4)

    >>
    >> Unfortunately, the 'charter' is not really binding, nor so far
    >> as I know, official.

    >
    > It is binding in the sense that many ISP's have etiquette rules
    > in place through their AUP's or TOS's. That is to abide by the
    > charter established for the newsgroup. Charter is officially
    > established and FAQ is officially posted on a recognised website
    > repository for such.
    >
    > Following substantiates that the charter is official. See
    >
    > ftp://ftp.isc.org/pub/usenet/news.an...ewgroups/comp/
    > comp.os.linux-reorg3
    >
    > or http://tinyurl.com/egj8s
    >
    > for background.
    >
    > http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/
    > browse_frm/thread/3a36eaf74cc73f/98fda11a5b066043?hl
    >=en&lnk=gst&q=charter+official#98fda11a5b066043
    >
    > or http://tinyurl.com/2cvzn7
    >
    > starting with post #15 has a good explanation.
    >
    > Since COLA is a public and unmoderated forum, a certain amount of
    > deviation can be tolerated. Much of this falls under
    > camaraderie. People are people and such is to be expected. As
    > long as there is a general consensus, such is not considered as
    > off-topic.
    >
    > However, trolling to be disruptive, insultive, libelous, etc. is
    > not conducive or constructive to normal, healthy conversation.
    > It destroys camaraderie and chases people away from the forum,
    > who otherwise would be healthy, contributing members.
    >
    > Thus, the appropriate way to deal with abuse is complaint to the
    > abuser's ISP. Some ISP's may seem to be non-responsive. But if
    > sufficient enough complaints are received, will usually net the
    > desired effect of bringing abuse to a close.
    >
    > Prior to that, sometimes a simple warning by letting abuser know
    > the charter helps. If that does not work, it gives more
    > ammunition to show ISP that user has been supplied the charter.
    >


    Yes, the charter is both binding and official. Kier has always failed
    to grasp this point, but really, I think that is because he likes to be
    trolled by the wintrolls, so it suits him to claim that the charter and
    faq do not apply, just as it suits the wintrolls.

    --
    | Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
    | Cola faq: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/linux/advocacy/faq-and-primer/ |
    | Cola trolls: http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/ |
    | My (new) blog: http://www.thereisnomagic.org |

  13. Re: Linux users named a 'cult' by savvy IT reporter

    On Tue, 01 Jan 2008 16:23:42 +0000, Mark Kent wrote:

    > High Plains Thumper espoused:
    >> Kier wrote:
    >>> High Plains Thumper wrote:
    >>>> Kier wrote:
    >>>>> eatfastnoodle wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> Yes, it's a religion. At least in term of the
    >>>>>> viciousness its members attack anything or anybody
    >>>>>> that's different from them. Anybody dares
    >>>>>
    >>>>> A few extreme characters might be so, but that's not such
    >>>>> a surprise in any advocacy group, be it Linux, Mac or
    >>>>> Windows. And no, that doesn't make it a religion. A cause,
    >>>>> possibly, but there are many causes far more strident.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> to criticize anything that has a open label attached to
    >>>>>> its chest will be verbally lynched in blogsphere, in
    >>>>>> newsgroup, in any nerd-gathering places. Regardless of
    >>>>>> the merit of criticism, we want open, we want choice,
    >>>>>> but we are willing to be nazi toward those who don't
    >>>>>> share our ideology.
    >>>>> You may be. I'm not.
    >>>>
    >>>> It concerns me when someone comes with vague accusations
    >>>> without specific examples. Such is definitely not
    >>>> expressions or supporting expressions or related to
    >>>> comradery support of this newgroup's charter, "For
    >>>> discussion of the benefits of Linux compared to other
    >>>> operating systems." (Ref.
    >>>> http://www.faqs.org/faqs/linux/advocacy/faq-and-primer/ and
    >>>> Paragraph 1.4)
    >>>
    >>> Unfortunately, the 'charter' is not really binding, nor so far
    >>> as I know, official.

    >>
    >> It is binding in the sense that many ISP's have etiquette rules
    >> in place through their AUP's or TOS's. That is to abide by the
    >> charter established for the newsgroup. Charter is officially
    >> established and FAQ is officially posted on a recognised website
    >> repository for such.
    >>
    >> Following substantiates that the charter is official. See
    >>
    >> ftp://ftp.isc.org/pub/usenet/news.an...ewgroups/comp/
    >> comp.os.linux-reorg3
    >>
    >> or http://tinyurl.com/egj8s
    >>
    >> for background.
    >>
    >> http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/
    >> browse_frm/thread/3a36eaf74cc73f/98fda11a5b066043?hl
    >>=en&lnk=gst&q=charter+official#98fda11a5b066043
    >>
    >> or http://tinyurl.com/2cvzn7
    >>
    >> starting with post #15 has a good explanation.
    >>
    >> Since COLA is a public and unmoderated forum, a certain amount of
    >> deviation can be tolerated. Much of this falls under
    >> camaraderie. People are people and such is to be expected. As
    >> long as there is a general consensus, such is not considered as
    >> off-topic.
    >>
    >> However, trolling to be disruptive, insultive, libelous, etc. is
    >> not conducive or constructive to normal, healthy conversation.
    >> It destroys camaraderie and chases people away from the forum,
    >> who otherwise would be healthy, contributing members.
    >>
    >> Thus, the appropriate way to deal with abuse is complaint to the
    >> abuser's ISP. Some ISP's may seem to be non-responsive. But if
    >> sufficient enough complaints are received, will usually net the
    >> desired effect of bringing abuse to a close.
    >>
    >> Prior to that, sometimes a simple warning by letting abuser know
    >> the charter helps. If that does not work, it gives more
    >> ammunition to show ISP that user has been supplied the charter.
    >>

    >
    > Yes, the charter is both binding and official. Kier has always failed
    > to grasp this point, but really, I think that is because he likes to be
    > trolled by the wintrolls, so it suits him to claim that the charter and
    > faq do not apply, just as it suits the wintrolls.


    Tell me, who exactly is going to enforce this charter?

    --
    Kier


+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2