[News] Funny Article Advocating Linux - Linux

This is a discussion on [News] Funny Article Advocating Linux - Linux ; On 29 Sep, 00:55, Roy Schestowitz wrote: > ____/ dapunka on Friday 28 September 2007 23:13 : \____ > > > > > > > On 28 Sep, 22:20, Mark Kent wrote: > >> Jim Richardson espoused: > > >> ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 72

Thread: [News] Funny Article Advocating Linux

  1. Re: Funny Article Advocating Linux

    On 29 Sep, 00:55, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
    > ____/ dapunka on Friday 28 September 2007 23:13 : \____
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > > On 28 Sep, 22:20, Mark Kent wrote:
    > >> Jim Richardson espoused:

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

    >
    > >> > On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 16:40:22 +0100,
    > >> > Roy Schestowitz wrote:
    > >> >> ____/ chrisv on Friday 28 September 2007 14:54 : \____

    >
    > >> >>> Roy Schestowitz wrote:

    >
    > >> >>>>But if it's not exactly like Windows, then it's behind right? Some
    > >> >>>>reviewers will give high score to those who mimic mistakes, e.g.
    > >> >>>>Xandros, Linspire...

    >
    > >> >>> One of my best friends has been using Linspire for years, now. Works
    > >> >>> for him...

    >
    > >> >> It does. But Apple OS X also works as a BSD. But it's not open source.
    > >> >> It's aggressive lock-in and restriction of choice. We're back were we
    > >> >> started -- another Windows.

    >
    > >> > How is someone using Linspire "locked in"?

    >
    > >> Didn't they sign some kind of limited cross-licensing deal with
    > >> Microsoft, whilst not quite admitting what it was the customer was
    > >> really getting?

    >
    > > I think Linspire are in that merry gang that signed "interoperability
    > > deals" with Microsoft (so when MS go after our commie, patent-
    > > violating asses, Linspire users can breathe easy). I've never tried
    > > Linspire. When I learnt that their original name was "Lindows", I
    > > just couldn't take them seriously. Highly bigoted of me - Linspire
    > > might be the bestest distro /ever/. Many people say that other
    > > cowardly bunch of scum-lovers, Novell, do a good Linux too. I just
    > > don't want to be associated with suchfolk.

    >
    > To just illustrate this point, you are allowed to install Linspire on
    > only /ONE/ PC. I couldn't believe it when I saw it, but there is a passionate
    > doubter of Linspire at Digg and he knows their plans very intimately. There
    > are various other examples. Xandros, by the way, isn't much better.
    >
    > --
    > ~~ Best of wishes
    >
    > Roy S. Schestowitz | Useless fact: 12345679 x 8 = 98765432http://Schestowitz.com | GNU is Not UNIX | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
    > http://iuron.com- proposing a non-profit search engine- Hide quoted text -
    >
    > - Show quoted text -


    stick to windows


  2. Re: [News] Funny Article Advocating Linux

    Jim Richardson espoused:
    > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    > Hash: SHA1
    >
    > On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 11:53:51 +0100,
    > Mark Kent wrote:
    >> Roy Schestowitz espoused:
    >>> ____/ Jim Richardson on Sunday 30 September 2007 05:47 : \____

    >
    >>>
    >>>> When OOrg on the distro you use can support ooxml, does that mean you
    >>>> are locked it?
    >>>
    >>> No.

    >>
    >> Yes, it does, and as I keep pointing out, you are always locked-in to a
    >> point, the question being the height of the exit barrier, ie., how much
    >> will it cost.
    >>
    >> Jim seems unable to process this.
    >>

    >
    > if *all* distros *all* lock you in, no matter what, then the term is
    > meanigless, and Roy, singling out Linspire for that, is equally
    > meaningless.


    It's not meaningless, but you're still failing to process the concept.
    The issue is about the cost of exit. The cost can be minimised, or it
    can be maximised. When maximised, it can (as has happened to me in my
    day job) amount to millions.

    Surely you can see that some situations will be less expensive to exit
    from than others?

    --
    | 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 |

  3. Re: [News] Funny Article Advocating Linux

    Mark Kent wrote:

    > Jim Richardson espoused:
    >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    >> Hash: SHA1
    >>
    >> On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 11:53:51 +0100,
    >> Mark Kent wrote:
    >>> Roy Schestowitz espoused:
    >>>> ____/ Jim Richardson on Sunday 30 September 2007 05:47 : \____

    >>
    >>>>
    >>>>> When OOrg on the distro you use can support ooxml, does that mean you
    >>>>> are locked it?
    >>>>
    >>>> No.
    >>>
    >>> Yes, it does, and as I keep pointing out, you are always locked-in to a
    >>> point, the question being the height of the exit barrier, ie., how much
    >>> will it cost.
    >>>
    >>> Jim seems unable to process this.
    >>>

    >>
    >> if *all* distros *all* lock you in, no matter what, then the term is
    >> meanigless, and Roy, singling out Linspire for that, is equally
    >> meaningless.

    >
    > It's not meaningless, but you're still failing to process the concept.
    > The issue is about the cost of exit. The cost can be minimised, or it
    > can be maximised. When maximised, it can (as has happened to me in my
    > day job) amount to millions.
    >
    > Surely you can see that some situations will be less expensive to exit
    > from than others?
    >


    By now I actually think that you are completely nuts and an imbecile

    You are simply babbling incoherent idiocy with your "exit barriers" with
    regards to an "import filter" which actually enables to bypass those
    very "barriers"
    --
    Avoid reality at all costs.


  4. Re: [News] Funny Article Advocating Linux

    Peter Köhlmann espoused:
    > Mark Kent wrote:
    >
    >> Jim Richardson espoused:
    >>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    >>> Hash: SHA1
    >>>
    >>> On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 11:53:51 +0100,
    >>> Mark Kent wrote:
    >>>> Roy Schestowitz espoused:
    >>>>> ____/ Jim Richardson on Sunday 30 September 2007 05:47 : \____
    >>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> When OOrg on the distro you use can support ooxml, does that mean you
    >>>>>> are locked it?
    >>>>>
    >>>>> No.
    >>>>
    >>>> Yes, it does, and as I keep pointing out, you are always locked-in to a
    >>>> point, the question being the height of the exit barrier, ie., how much
    >>>> will it cost.
    >>>>
    >>>> Jim seems unable to process this.
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> if *all* distros *all* lock you in, no matter what, then the term is
    >>> meanigless, and Roy, singling out Linspire for that, is equally
    >>> meaningless.

    >>
    >> It's not meaningless, but you're still failing to process the concept.
    >> The issue is about the cost of exit. The cost can be minimised, or it
    >> can be maximised. When maximised, it can (as has happened to me in my
    >> day job) amount to millions.
    >>
    >> Surely you can see that some situations will be less expensive to exit
    >> from than others?
    >>

    >
    > By now I actually think that you are completely nuts and an imbecile


    And yet you still reply - perhaps this is more of a clue about thee than
    me?

    >
    > You are simply babbling incoherent idiocy with your "exit barriers" with
    > regards to an "import filter" which actually enables to bypass those
    > very "barriers"


    I'm sorry that you are finding the concepts confusing; let me try to
    explain it a different way:

    1. Everything has an exit barrier. If nothing else, just the
    opportunity cost alone (the oft-used how much is your time worth
    argument).

    2. Exit barriers can be artificially raised by the exploitation of
    technological barriers. Technological barriers come in several forms,
    and can be additive:

    2.1 Proprietary protocols
    2.2 Proprietary file formats
    2.3 Proprietary, binary-only applications or modules
    2.4 Restrictive licensing (eg., non-GPL-compliant)

    They are all nasty. In this example, we're discussing the use of (2.3)
    in order to try to solve problems caused by (2.2). Unfortunately, this
    causes a particular type of lock-in, as follows:

    3.1 Particular glibc version
    3.2 Particular kernel version (because of libc issues)
    3.3 Particular processor type
    3.4 Particular hardware stack

    Or, we might be discussing the use of (2.4) to resolve the problems
    caused by (2.2). The results could well be much the same, but are
    likely to include essentially the same set, as shown immediately above.

    So, in order to minimise the lock-in, the proper route is to have
    "import filters" which are subject to no licensing restrictions
    whatsoever, and be distributed in a GPL-compliant form. I think it
    unlikely that both these conditions are being met.

    --
    | 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 |

  5. Re: [News] Funny Article Advocating Linux

    Mark Kent wrote:

    > Peter Köhlmann espoused:
    >> Mark Kent wrote:
    >>
    >>> Jim Richardson espoused:
    >>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    >>>> Hash: SHA1
    >>>>
    >>>> On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 11:53:51 +0100,
    >>>> Mark Kent wrote:
    >>>>> Roy Schestowitz espoused:
    >>>>>> ____/ Jim Richardson on Sunday 30 September 2007 05:47 : \____
    >>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>> When OOrg on the distro you use can support ooxml, does that mean
    >>>>>>> you
    >>>>>>> are locked it?
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> No.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Yes, it does, and as I keep pointing out, you are always locked-in to
    >>>>> a point, the question being the height of the exit barrier, ie., how
    >>>>> much will it cost.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Jim seems unable to process this.
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> if *all* distros *all* lock you in, no matter what, then the term is
    >>>> meanigless, and Roy, singling out Linspire for that, is equally
    >>>> meaningless.
    >>>
    >>> It's not meaningless, but you're still failing to process the concept.
    >>> The issue is about the cost of exit. The cost can be minimised, or it
    >>> can be maximised. When maximised, it can (as has happened to me in my
    >>> day job) amount to millions.
    >>>
    >>> Surely you can see that some situations will be less expensive to exit
    >>> from than others?
    >>>

    >>
    >> By now I actually think that you are completely nuts and an imbecile

    >
    > And yet you still reply - perhaps this is more of a clue about thee than
    > me?
    >
    >>
    >> You are simply babbling incoherent idiocy with your "exit barriers" with
    >> regards to an "import filter" which actually enables to bypass those
    >> very "barriers"

    >
    > I'm sorry that you are finding the concepts confusing; let me try to
    > explain it a different way:
    >


    What part of "import filter" was too difficult for you to understand?
    You are as dishonest as Snot in your attempts to bypass the questions

    MArk, you really are an imbecile. And even more an asshole than DFS in your
    dishonesty. That guy is just born stupid and got worse. You don't have that
    explanation for your cretinous acts

    < snip lunatic rant >
    --
    Warning: 10 days have passed since your last Windows reinstall.


  6. Re: [News] Funny Article Advocating Linux

    Peter Köhlmann espoused:
    > Mark Kent wrote:
    >
    >> Peter Köhlmann espoused:
    >>> Mark Kent wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> Jim Richardson espoused:
    >>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    >>>>> Hash: SHA1
    >>>>>
    >>>>> On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 11:53:51 +0100,
    >>>>> Mark Kent wrote:
    >>>>>> Roy Schestowitz espoused:
    >>>>>>> ____/ Jim Richardson on Sunday 30 September 2007 05:47 : \____
    >>>>>
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> When OOrg on the distro you use can support ooxml, does that mean
    >>>>>>>> you
    >>>>>>>> are locked it?
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> No.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Yes, it does, and as I keep pointing out, you are always locked-in to
    >>>>>> a point, the question being the height of the exit barrier, ie., how
    >>>>>> much will it cost.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Jim seems unable to process this.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> if *all* distros *all* lock you in, no matter what, then the term is
    >>>>> meanigless, and Roy, singling out Linspire for that, is equally
    >>>>> meaningless.
    >>>>
    >>>> It's not meaningless, but you're still failing to process the concept.
    >>>> The issue is about the cost of exit. The cost can be minimised, or it
    >>>> can be maximised. When maximised, it can (as has happened to me in my
    >>>> day job) amount to millions.
    >>>>
    >>>> Surely you can see that some situations will be less expensive to exit
    >>>> from than others?
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> By now I actually think that you are completely nuts and an imbecile

    >>
    >> And yet you still reply - perhaps this is more of a clue about thee than
    >> me?
    >>
    >>>
    >>> You are simply babbling incoherent idiocy with your "exit barriers" with
    >>> regards to an "import filter" which actually enables to bypass those
    >>> very "barriers"

    >>
    >> I'm sorry that you are finding the concepts confusing; let me try to
    >> explain it a different way:
    >>

    >
    > What part of "import filter" was too difficult for you to understand?
    > You are as dishonest as Snot in your attempts to bypass the questions


    I understood it perfectly well, and explained the issues - presumably
    you do not understand the situation or the explanation?

    >
    > MArk, you really are an imbecile. And even more an asshole than DFS in your
    > dishonesty. That guy is just born stupid and got worse. You don't have that
    > explanation for your cretinous acts
    >
    >< snip lunatic rant >


    I really don't understand why you behave this way, Peter. I put a lot
    of effort into explaining precisely the issue, but you merely delete it
    and respond with a load of insults. Why bother? It just doesn't seem
    worth the effort to me.

    --
    | 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 |

  7. Re: [News] Funny Article Advocating Linux

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

    On Mon, 1 Oct 2007 13:20:45 +0100,
    Mark Kent wrote:
    > Jim Richardson espoused:
    >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    >> Hash: SHA1
    >>
    >> On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 11:53:51 +0100,
    >> Mark Kent wrote:
    >>> Roy Schestowitz espoused:
    >>>> ____/ Jim Richardson on Sunday 30 September 2007 05:47 : \____

    >>
    >>>>
    >>>>> When OOrg on the distro you use can support ooxml, does that mean you
    >>>>> are locked it?
    >>>>
    >>>> No.
    >>>
    >>> Yes, it does, and as I keep pointing out, you are always locked-in to a
    >>> point, the question being the height of the exit barrier, ie., how much
    >>> will it cost.
    >>>
    >>> Jim seems unable to process this.
    >>>

    >>
    >> if *all* distros *all* lock you in, no matter what, then the term is
    >> meanigless, and Roy, singling out Linspire for that, is equally
    >> meaningless.

    >
    > It's not meaningless, but you're still failing to process the concept.
    > The issue is about the cost of exit. The cost can be minimised, or it
    > can be maximised. When maximised, it can (as has happened to me in my
    > day job) amount to millions.
    >


    No, you're failing to grasp that this is all about Roy's contention that
    Linpire locks in it's users. When asked to explain how Linspire locks in
    it's users, he pointed to Linspire's OOorg support of OOXML.

    > Surely you can see that some situations will be less expensive to exit
    > from than others?
    >


    Not relevent to the issue at hand.


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

    iD8DBQFHAX9Sd90bcYOAWPYRAq0gAJsEkhTCZVlO9xS6fgo4Bl zbTYMBkACfcISb
    tYXObJc/QxCq1k24FCka9T4=
    =cMbt
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

    --
    Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
    If you make yourselves sheep, the wolves will eat you
    --Benjamin Franklin

  8. Re: [News] Funny Article Advocating Linux

    ____/ Jim Richardson on Tuesday 02 October 2007 00:14 : \____

    > No, you're failing to grasp that this is all about Roy's contention that
    > Linpire locks in it's users.


    I neither said this nor did I contend. Now, that's just a case of bending the
    whole discussion.

    Linspire assists Microsoft's attempts to lock in users.

    --
    ~~ Best of wishes

    The folks on the Ubuntu CD cover need to apt-get shirt, not sudo fsck.
    http://Schestowitz.com | RHAT Linux | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
    03:05:03 up 22 days, 1:11, 5 users, load average: 3.30, 2.40, 2.03
    http://iuron.com - Open Source knowledge engine project

  9. Re: [News] Funny Article Advocating Linux

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

    On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 03:06:43 +0100,
    Roy Schestowitz wrote:
    > ____/ Jim Richardson on Tuesday 02 October 2007 00:14 : \____
    >
    >> No, you're failing to grasp that this is all about Roy's contention that
    >> Linpire locks in it's users.

    >
    > I neither said this nor did I contend. Now, that's just a case of bending the
    > whole discussion.
    >
    > Linspire assists Microsoft's attempts to lock in users.
    >


    How? by offering a way for former windows users to extract their data
    and save it in open formats?

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

    iD8DBQFHAc/Kd90bcYOAWPYRAsvTAJ4w63EUKDqs0gc3xj0cy2BKMSfPpgCeN Y3o
    /LruLoD5kUdHGNmt9pnA0Eo=
    =7LPJ
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

    --
    Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
    Have you ever noticed that at trade shows
    Microsoft is always the one giving away stress balls?

  10. Re: [News] Funny Article Advocating Linux

    ____/ Jim Richardson on Tuesday 02 October 2007 05:57 : \____

    > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    > Hash: SHA1
    >
    > On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 03:06:43 +0100,
    > Roy Schestowitz wrote:
    >> ____/ Jim Richardson on Tuesday 02 October 2007 00:14 : \____
    >>
    >>> No, you're failing to grasp that this is all about Roy's contention that
    >>> Linpire locks in it's users.

    >>
    >> I neither said this nor did I contend. Now, that's just a case of bending
    >> the whole discussion.
    >>
    >> Linspire assists Microsoft's attempts to lock in users.
    >>

    >
    > How? by offering a way for former windows users to extract their data
    > and save it in open formats?


    Office 2007 wasn't even out yet when the Novell deal was signed. Microsoft was
    required to (and reluctantly prepared to) implement ODF support for Microsoft
    Office. Instead, it bribed companies to get the upper arm.

    --
    ~~ Best of wishes

    Roy S. Schestowitz | Disclaimer: no SCO code used to generate this post
    http://Schestowitz.com | GNU is Not UNIX | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
    http://iuron.com - proposing a non-profit search engine

  11. Re: [News] Funny Article Advocating Linux

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

    On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 06:52:52 +0100,
    Roy Schestowitz wrote:
    > ____/ Jim Richardson on Tuesday 02 October 2007 05:57 : \____
    >
    >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    >> Hash: SHA1
    >>
    >> On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 03:06:43 +0100,
    >> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
    >>> ____/ Jim Richardson on Tuesday 02 October 2007 00:14 : \____
    >>>
    >>>> No, you're failing to grasp that this is all about Roy's contention that
    >>>> Linpire locks in it's users.
    >>>
    >>> I neither said this nor did I contend. Now, that's just a case of bending
    >>> the whole discussion.
    >>>
    >>> Linspire assists Microsoft's attempts to lock in users.
    >>>

    >>
    >> How? by offering a way for former windows users to extract their data
    >> and save it in open formats?

    >
    > Office 2007 wasn't even out yet when the Novell deal was signed. Microsoft was
    > required to (and reluctantly prepared to) implement ODF support for Microsoft
    > Office. Instead, it bribed companies to get the upper arm.
    >


    Again you fail to answer the question that was asked.

    You claimed that Linspire assists Microsofts attempts to lock in users.

    How?

    Don't respond with something about Novell or SuSE, that's a different
    company and distro. Please answer the question you have been
    asked.

    How does Linspire assist Microsoft in locking in users?
    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

    iD8DBQFHAePCd90bcYOAWPYRAnD/AKDYv1lDLriYeKQoB/cQ/aaGtbEetQCfUnDj
    R1s383auqiBoXouYf1deGME=
    =VcYV
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

    --
    Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
    Nothing says "loser" like "nymshifter".
    --chrisv on C.O.L.A

  12. Re: [News] Funny Article Advocating Linux

    Peter Köhlmann espoused:
    > Mark Kent wrote:
    >
    >> Peter Köhlmann espoused:
    >>> Mark Kent wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> Peter Köhlmann espoused:
    >>>>> Mark Kent wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> Jim Richardson espoused:
    >>>>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    >>>>>>> Hash: SHA1
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 11:53:51 +0100,
    >>>>>>> Mark Kent wrote:
    >>>>>>>> Roy Schestowitz espoused:
    >>>>>>>>> ____/ Jim Richardson on Sunday 30 September 2007 05:47 : \____
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>> When OOrg on the distro you use can support ooxml, does that mean
    >>>>>>>>>> you
    >>>>>>>>>> are locked it?
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>> No.
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> Yes, it does, and as I keep pointing out, you are always locked-in
    >>>>>>>> to a point, the question being the height of the exit barrier, ie.,
    >>>>>>>> how much will it cost.
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> Jim seems unable to process this.
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> if *all* distros *all* lock you in, no matter what, then the term is
    >>>>>>> meanigless, and Roy, singling out Linspire for that, is equally
    >>>>>>> meaningless.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> It's not meaningless, but you're still failing to process the concept.
    >>>>>> The issue is about the cost of exit. The cost can be minimised, or it
    >>>>>> can be maximised. When maximised, it can (as has happened to me in my
    >>>>>> day job) amount to millions.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Surely you can see that some situations will be less expensive to exit
    >>>>>> from than others?
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> By now I actually think that you are completely nuts and an imbecile
    >>>>
    >>>> And yet you still reply - perhaps this is more of a clue about thee than
    >>>> me?
    >>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> You are simply babbling incoherent idiocy with your "exit barriers"
    >>>>> with regards to an "import filter" which actually enables to bypass
    >>>>> those very "barriers"
    >>>>
    >>>> I'm sorry that you are finding the concepts confusing; let me try to
    >>>> explain it a different way:
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> What part of "import filter" was too difficult for you to understand?
    >>> You are as dishonest as Snot in your attempts to bypass the questions

    >>
    >> I understood it perfectly well, and explained the issues - presumably
    >> you do not understand the situation or the explanation?
    >>

    >
    > You explained ****. Your "explanations" are simply utterly balderdash.
    > Gob****e. Unadultered garbage


    So you do not understand the situation, or the explanation?

    >
    >>>
    >>> MArk, you really are an imbecile. And even more an asshole than DFS in
    >>> your dishonesty. That guy is just born stupid and got worse. You don't
    >>> have that explanation for your cretinous acts
    >>>
    >>>< snip lunatic rant >

    >>
    >> I really don't understand why you behave this way, Peter. I put a lot
    >> of effort into explaining precisely the issue, but you merely delete it
    >> and respond with a load of insults. Why bother? It just doesn't seem
    >> worth the effort to me.
    >>

    >
    > You put a lot of effort in mis-explaining the issue.
    >
    > Come on, tell us: How is an import-filter going to "lock you in".
    > Be precise. And stop this lunatic rubbish of the "exit costs".
    > It has nothing to do with a filter which allows you to do *more* than
    > without it


    I've already done that, Peter, and clearly, you realised that I had,
    which is why you deleted it.

    --
    | 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: [News] Funny Article Advocating Linux

    Jim Richardson espoused:
    > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    > Hash: SHA1
    >
    > On Mon, 1 Oct 2007 13:20:45 +0100,
    > Mark Kent wrote:
    >> Jim Richardson espoused:
    >>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    >>> Hash: SHA1
    >>>
    >>> On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 11:53:51 +0100,
    >>> Mark Kent wrote:
    >>>> Roy Schestowitz espoused:
    >>>>> ____/ Jim Richardson on Sunday 30 September 2007 05:47 : \____
    >>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> When OOrg on the distro you use can support ooxml, does that mean you
    >>>>>> are locked it?
    >>>>>
    >>>>> No.
    >>>>
    >>>> Yes, it does, and as I keep pointing out, you are always locked-in to a
    >>>> point, the question being the height of the exit barrier, ie., how much
    >>>> will it cost.
    >>>>
    >>>> Jim seems unable to process this.
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> if *all* distros *all* lock you in, no matter what, then the term is
    >>> meanigless, and Roy, singling out Linspire for that, is equally
    >>> meaningless.

    >>
    >> It's not meaningless, but you're still failing to process the concept.
    >> The issue is about the cost of exit. The cost can be minimised, or it
    >> can be maximised. When maximised, it can (as has happened to me in my
    >> day job) amount to millions.
    >>

    >
    > No, you're failing to grasp that this is all about Roy's contention that
    > Linpire locks in it's users. When asked to explain how Linspire locks in
    > it's users, he pointed to Linspire's OOorg support of OOXML.


    And is that support available on all platforms, open-source, without
    claims of intellectual property, with source-code available, respecting
    all of the freedoms of the GPL?

    >
    >> Surely you can see that some situations will be less expensive to exit
    >> from than others?
    >>

    >
    > Not relevent to the issue at hand.
    >


    It *is* the issue at hand. That you fail to recognise this illustrates
    why you fail to grasp the explanation.

    --
    | 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 |

  14. Re: [News] Funny Article Advocating Linux

    Mark Kent wrote:

    > Peter Köhlmann espoused:
    >> Mark Kent wrote:
    >>
    >>> Peter Köhlmann espoused:
    >>>> Mark Kent wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> Peter Köhlmann espoused:
    >>>>>> Mark Kent wrote:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>> Jim Richardson espoused:
    >>>>>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    >>>>>>>> Hash: SHA1
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 11:53:51 +0100,
    >>>>>>>> Mark Kent wrote:
    >>>>>>>>> Roy Schestowitz espoused:
    >>>>>>>>>> ____/ Jim Richardson on Sunday 30 September 2007 05:47 : \____
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>> When OOrg on the distro you use can support ooxml, does that
    >>>>>>>>>>> mean you
    >>>>>>>>>>> are locked it?
    >>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>> No.
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>> Yes, it does, and as I keep pointing out, you are always locked-in
    >>>>>>>>> to a point, the question being the height of the exit barrier,
    >>>>>>>>> ie., how much will it cost.
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>> Jim seems unable to process this.
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> if *all* distros *all* lock you in, no matter what, then the term
    >>>>>>>> is meanigless, and Roy, singling out Linspire for that, is equally
    >>>>>>>> meaningless.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> It's not meaningless, but you're still failing to process the
    >>>>>>> concept.
    >>>>>>> The issue is about the cost of exit. The cost can be minimised, or
    >>>>>>> it
    >>>>>>> can be maximised. When maximised, it can (as has happened to me in
    >>>>>>> my day job) amount to millions.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> Surely you can see that some situations will be less expensive to
    >>>>>>> exit from than others?
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> By now I actually think that you are completely nuts and an imbecile
    >>>>>
    >>>>> And yet you still reply - perhaps this is more of a clue about thee
    >>>>> than me?
    >>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> You are simply babbling incoherent idiocy with your "exit barriers"
    >>>>>> with regards to an "import filter" which actually enables to bypass
    >>>>>> those very "barriers"
    >>>>>
    >>>>> I'm sorry that you are finding the concepts confusing; let me try to
    >>>>> explain it a different way:
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> What part of "import filter" was too difficult for you to understand?
    >>>> You are as dishonest as Snot in your attempts to bypass the questions
    >>>
    >>> I understood it perfectly well, and explained the issues - presumably
    >>> you do not understand the situation or the explanation?
    >>>

    >>
    >> You explained ****. Your "explanations" are simply utterly balderdash.
    >> Gob****e. Unadultered garbage

    >
    > So you do not understand the situation, or the explanation?
    >
    >>
    >>>>
    >>>> MArk, you really are an imbecile. And even more an asshole than DFS in
    >>>> your dishonesty. That guy is just born stupid and got worse. You don't
    >>>> have that explanation for your cretinous acts
    >>>>
    >>>>< snip lunatic rant >
    >>>
    >>> I really don't understand why you behave this way, Peter. I put a lot
    >>> of effort into explaining precisely the issue, but you merely delete it
    >>> and respond with a load of insults. Why bother? It just doesn't seem
    >>> worth the effort to me.
    >>>

    >>
    >> You put a lot of effort in mis-explaining the issue.
    >>
    >> Come on, tell us: How is an import-filter going to "lock you in".
    >> Be precise. And stop this lunatic rubbish of the "exit costs".
    >> It has nothing to do with a filter which allows you to do *more* than
    >> without it

    >
    > I've already done that, Peter, and clearly, you realised that I had,
    > which is why you deleted it.
    >


    Idiot

    And i mean it. You *are* an idiot. Not a tiny little bit better than
    linux-sux or DFS
    --
    You're genuinely bogus.


  15. Re: [News] Funny Article Advocating Linux

    In article <7s59t4-gtf.ln1@ellandroad.demon.co.uk>,
    Mark Kent wrote:
    > > No, you're failing to grasp that this is all about Roy's contention that
    > > Linpire locks in it's users. When asked to explain how Linspire locks in
    > > it's users, he pointed to Linspire's OOorg support of OOXML.

    >
    > And is that support available on all platforms, open-source, without
    > claims of intellectual property, with source-code available, respecting
    > all of the freedoms of the GPL?


    Since nearly everything in most Linux distributions is under claims of
    intellectual property, throwing "without claims of intellectual
    property" in there is bogus.

    > >> Surely you can see that some situations will be less expensive to exit
    > >> from than others?
    > >>

    > >
    > > Not relevent to the issue at hand.
    > >

    >
    > It *is* the issue at hand. That you fail to recognise this illustrates
    > why you fail to grasp the explanation.


    The exit cost is near zero. If at any time you decide you don't want to
    use OOXML, just save your document in ODF.


    --
    --Tim Smith

  16. Re: [News] Funny Article Advocating Linux

    Peter Köhlmann espoused:
    > Mark Kent wrote:
    >
    >> Peter Köhlmann espoused:
    >>> Mark Kent wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> Peter Köhlmann espoused:
    >>>>> Mark Kent wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> Peter Köhlmann espoused:
    >>>>>>> Mark Kent wrote:
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> Jim Richardson espoused:
    >>>>>>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    >>>>>>>>> Hash: SHA1
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>> On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 11:53:51 +0100,
    >>>>>>>>> Mark Kent wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>> Roy Schestowitz espoused:
    >>>>>>>>>>> ____/ Jim Richardson on Sunday 30 September 2007 05:47 : \____
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>> When OOrg on the distro you use can support ooxml, does that
    >>>>>>>>>>>> mean you
    >>>>>>>>>>>> are locked it?
    >>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>> No.
    >>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>> Yes, it does, and as I keep pointing out, you are always locked-in
    >>>>>>>>>> to a point, the question being the height of the exit barrier,
    >>>>>>>>>> ie., how much will it cost.
    >>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>> Jim seems unable to process this.
    >>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>> if *all* distros *all* lock you in, no matter what, then the term
    >>>>>>>>> is meanigless, and Roy, singling out Linspire for that, is equally
    >>>>>>>>> meaningless.
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> It's not meaningless, but you're still failing to process the
    >>>>>>>> concept.
    >>>>>>>> The issue is about the cost of exit. The cost can be minimised, or
    >>>>>>>> it
    >>>>>>>> can be maximised. When maximised, it can (as has happened to me in
    >>>>>>>> my day job) amount to millions.
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> Surely you can see that some situations will be less expensive to
    >>>>>>>> exit from than others?
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> By now I actually think that you are completely nuts and an imbecile
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> And yet you still reply - perhaps this is more of a clue about thee
    >>>>>> than me?
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> You are simply babbling incoherent idiocy with your "exit barriers"
    >>>>>>> with regards to an "import filter" which actually enables to bypass
    >>>>>>> those very "barriers"
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> I'm sorry that you are finding the concepts confusing; let me try to
    >>>>>> explain it a different way:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> What part of "import filter" was too difficult for you to understand?
    >>>>> You are as dishonest as Snot in your attempts to bypass the questions
    >>>>
    >>>> I understood it perfectly well, and explained the issues - presumably
    >>>> you do not understand the situation or the explanation?
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> You explained ****. Your "explanations" are simply utterly balderdash.
    >>> Gob****e. Unadultered garbage

    >>
    >> So you do not understand the situation, or the explanation?
    >>
    >>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> MArk, you really are an imbecile. And even more an asshole than DFS in
    >>>>> your dishonesty. That guy is just born stupid and got worse. You don't
    >>>>> have that explanation for your cretinous acts
    >>>>>
    >>>>>< snip lunatic rant >
    >>>>
    >>>> I really don't understand why you behave this way, Peter. I put a lot
    >>>> of effort into explaining precisely the issue, but you merely delete it
    >>>> and respond with a load of insults. Why bother? It just doesn't seem
    >>>> worth the effort to me.
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> You put a lot of effort in mis-explaining the issue.
    >>>
    >>> Come on, tell us: How is an import-filter going to "lock you in".
    >>> Be precise. And stop this lunatic rubbish of the "exit costs".
    >>> It has nothing to do with a filter which allows you to do *more* than
    >>> without it

    >>
    >> I've already done that, Peter, and clearly, you realised that I had,
    >> which is why you deleted it.
    >>

    >
    > Idiot
    >
    > And i mean it. You *are* an idiot. Not a tiny little bit better than
    > linux-sux or DFS


    As I said above, perhaps you should look in the mirror when hurling some
    of these insults.

    If you want to discuss my explanation, I'll be happy to, but deleting it
    and then claiming it to be wrong without any justification is precisely
    what I'd expect from linux-sux or DFS.

    If not, why are you wasting bandwidth?

    --
    | 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 |

  17. Re: [News] Funny Article Advocating Linux

    Mark Kent wrote:

    > Peter Köhlmann espoused:
    >> Mark Kent wrote:
    >>
    >>> Peter Köhlmann espoused:
    >>>> Mark Kent wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> Peter Köhlmann espoused:
    >>>>>> Mark Kent wrote:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>> Peter Köhlmann espoused:
    >>>>>>>> Mark Kent wrote:
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>> Jim Richardson espoused:
    >>>>>>>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    >>>>>>>>>> Hash: SHA1
    >>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 11:53:51 +0100,
    >>>>>>>>>> Mark Kent wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>>> Roy Schestowitz espoused:
    >>>>>>>>>>>> ____/ Jim Richardson on Sunday 30 September 2007 05:47 : \____
    >>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> When OOrg on the distro you use can support ooxml, does that
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> mean you
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> are locked it?
    >>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>> No.
    >>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>> Yes, it does, and as I keep pointing out, you are always
    >>>>>>>>>>> locked-in to a point, the question being the height of the exit
    >>>>>>>>>>> barrier, ie., how much will it cost.
    >>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>> Jim seems unable to process this.
    >>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>> if *all* distros *all* lock you in, no matter what, then the term
    >>>>>>>>>> is meanigless, and Roy, singling out Linspire for that, is
    >>>>>>>>>> equally meaningless.
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>> It's not meaningless, but you're still failing to process the
    >>>>>>>>> concept.
    >>>>>>>>> The issue is about the cost of exit. The cost can be minimised,
    >>>>>>>>> or it
    >>>>>>>>> can be maximised. When maximised, it can (as has happened to me
    >>>>>>>>> in my day job) amount to millions.
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>> Surely you can see that some situations will be less expensive to
    >>>>>>>>> exit from than others?
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> By now I actually think that you are completely nuts and an
    >>>>>>>> imbecile
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> And yet you still reply - perhaps this is more of a clue about thee
    >>>>>>> than me?
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> You are simply babbling incoherent idiocy with your "exit barriers"
    >>>>>>>> with regards to an "import filter" which actually enables to bypass
    >>>>>>>> those very "barriers"
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> I'm sorry that you are finding the concepts confusing; let me try
    >>>>>>> to explain it a different way:
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> What part of "import filter" was too difficult for you to understand?
    >>>>>> You are as dishonest as Snot in your attempts to bypass the questions
    >>>>>
    >>>>> I understood it perfectly well, and explained the issues - presumably
    >>>>> you do not understand the situation or the explanation?
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> You explained ****. Your "explanations" are simply utterly balderdash.
    >>>> Gob****e. Unadultered garbage
    >>>
    >>> So you do not understand the situation, or the explanation?
    >>>
    >>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> MArk, you really are an imbecile. And even more an asshole than DFS
    >>>>>> in your dishonesty. That guy is just born stupid and got worse. You
    >>>>>> don't have that explanation for your cretinous acts
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>< snip lunatic rant >
    >>>>>
    >>>>> I really don't understand why you behave this way, Peter. I put a lot
    >>>>> of effort into explaining precisely the issue, but you merely delete
    >>>>> it
    >>>>> and respond with a load of insults. Why bother? It just doesn't seem
    >>>>> worth the effort to me.
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> You put a lot of effort in mis-explaining the issue.
    >>>>
    >>>> Come on, tell us: How is an import-filter going to "lock you in".
    >>>> Be precise. And stop this lunatic rubbish of the "exit costs".
    >>>> It has nothing to do with a filter which allows you to do *more* than
    >>>> without it
    >>>
    >>> I've already done that, Peter, and clearly, you realised that I had,
    >>> which is why you deleted it.
    >>>

    >>
    >> Idiot
    >>
    >> And i mean it. You *are* an idiot. Not a tiny little bit better than
    >> linux-sux or DFS

    >
    > As I said above, perhaps you should look in the mirror when hurling some
    > of these insults.
    >
    > If you want to discuss my explanation, I'll be happy to, but deleting it
    > and then claiming it to be wrong without any justification is precisely
    > what I'd expect from linux-sux or DFS.
    >
    > If not, why are you wasting bandwidth?
    >


    If you /had/ explained how an additional filter is going to lock-in people,
    I would have noticed. Instead you blather about "exist costs" even when
    none exist. Extremely dishonest way to argue. Snot tought you well

    You have chosen the Snot evasion: Claim that you have explained it, even if
    you have done nothing of that sort, and then continue your idiotic rant
    which has nothing to do with the question asked

    You *are* a dishonest twit, Mark. Very much so
    And unfortunately, Roy is doing bad as well. He also makes completely nutty
    claims and then fails to support them in whichever way.

    You both (and especially you, Mark) are not a tiny little shred better than
    this wintroll scum infesting the group. You are actually doing linux a
    disserve with your dishonesty

    If you don't like being called that dishonest asshole you really are, tough
    luck for you.
    Once I thought of you as a real asset for linux advocacy. Meanwhile I am
    convinced that you are no better than Erik Funkenbusch or Hadron Quark
    --
    If you had any brains, you'd be dangerous.


  18. Re: [News] Funny Article Advocating Linux

    Peter Köhlmann espoused:
    > Mark Kent wrote:
    >
    >> Peter Köhlmann espoused:
    >>> Mark Kent wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> Peter Köhlmann espoused:
    >>>>> Mark Kent wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> Peter Köhlmann espoused:
    >>>>>>> Mark Kent wrote:
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> Peter Köhlmann espoused:
    >>>>>>>>> Mark Kent wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>> Jim Richardson espoused:
    >>>>>>>>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    >>>>>>>>>>> Hash: SHA1
    >>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 11:53:51 +0100,
    >>>>>>>>>>> Mark Kent wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>>>> Roy Schestowitz espoused:
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> ____/ Jim Richardson on Sunday 30 September 2007 05:47 : \____
    >>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> When OOrg on the distro you use can support ooxml, does that
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> mean you
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> are locked it?
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> No.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, it does, and as I keep pointing out, you are always
    >>>>>>>>>>>> locked-in to a point, the question being the height of the exit
    >>>>>>>>>>>> barrier, ie., how much will it cost.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>> Jim seems unable to process this.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>> if *all* distros *all* lock you in, no matter what, then the term
    >>>>>>>>>>> is meanigless, and Roy, singling out Linspire for that, is
    >>>>>>>>>>> equally meaningless.
    >>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>> It's not meaningless, but you're still failing to process the
    >>>>>>>>>> concept.
    >>>>>>>>>> The issue is about the cost of exit. The cost can be minimised,
    >>>>>>>>>> or it
    >>>>>>>>>> can be maximised. When maximised, it can (as has happened to me
    >>>>>>>>>> in my day job) amount to millions.
    >>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>> Surely you can see that some situations will be less expensive to
    >>>>>>>>>> exit from than others?
    >>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>> By now I actually think that you are completely nuts and an
    >>>>>>>>> imbecile
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> And yet you still reply - perhaps this is more of a clue about thee
    >>>>>>>> than me?
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>> You are simply babbling incoherent idiocy with your "exit barriers"
    >>>>>>>>> with regards to an "import filter" which actually enables to bypass
    >>>>>>>>> those very "barriers"
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> I'm sorry that you are finding the concepts confusing; let me try
    >>>>>>>> to explain it a different way:
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> What part of "import filter" was too difficult for you to understand?
    >>>>>>> You are as dishonest as Snot in your attempts to bypass the questions
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> I understood it perfectly well, and explained the issues - presumably
    >>>>>> you do not understand the situation or the explanation?
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> You explained ****. Your "explanations" are simply utterly balderdash.
    >>>>> Gob****e. Unadultered garbage
    >>>>
    >>>> So you do not understand the situation, or the explanation?
    >>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> MArk, you really are an imbecile. And even more an asshole than DFS
    >>>>>>> in your dishonesty. That guy is just born stupid and got worse. You
    >>>>>>> don't have that explanation for your cretinous acts
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>< snip lunatic rant >
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> I really don't understand why you behave this way, Peter. I put a lot
    >>>>>> of effort into explaining precisely the issue, but you merely delete
    >>>>>> it
    >>>>>> and respond with a load of insults. Why bother? It just doesn't seem
    >>>>>> worth the effort to me.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> You put a lot of effort in mis-explaining the issue.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Come on, tell us: How is an import-filter going to "lock you in".
    >>>>> Be precise. And stop this lunatic rubbish of the "exit costs".
    >>>>> It has nothing to do with a filter which allows you to do *more* than
    >>>>> without it
    >>>>
    >>>> I've already done that, Peter, and clearly, you realised that I had,
    >>>> which is why you deleted it.
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> Idiot
    >>>
    >>> And i mean it. You *are* an idiot. Not a tiny little bit better than
    >>> linux-sux or DFS

    >>
    >> As I said above, perhaps you should look in the mirror when hurling some
    >> of these insults.
    >>
    >> If you want to discuss my explanation, I'll be happy to, but deleting it
    >> and then claiming it to be wrong without any justification is precisely
    >> what I'd expect from linux-sux or DFS.
    >>
    >> If not, why are you wasting bandwidth?
    >>

    >
    > If you /had/ explained how an additional filter is going to lock-in people,
    > I would have noticed. Instead you blather about "exist costs" even when
    > none exist. Extremely dishonest way to argue.


    Exit costs exist on everything, Peter. This is trivial business
    economics.

    If you don't understand this, then you won't understand lock-in and how
    it works, and therefore will never understand how non-free filters cause
    lock-in.

    Is this, perhaps, because your own business model is based on lock-in,
    and you are feeling threatened?

    --
    | 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 |

  19. Re: [News] Funny Article Advocating Linux

    Mark Kent wrote:

    > Peter Köhlmann espoused:
    >> Mark Kent wrote:
    >>
    >>> Peter Köhlmann espoused:
    >>>> Mark Kent wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> Peter Köhlmann espoused:
    >>>>>> Mark Kent wrote:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>> Peter Köhlmann espoused:
    >>>>>>>> Mark Kent wrote:
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>> Peter Köhlmann espoused:
    >>>>>>>>>> Mark Kent wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>> Jim Richardson espoused:
    >>>>>>>>>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    >>>>>>>>>>>> Hash: SHA1
    >>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 11:53:51 +0100,
    >>>>>>>>>>>> Mark Kent wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> Roy Schestowitz espoused:
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ____/ Jim Richardson on Sunday 30 September 2007 05:47 :
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> \____
    >>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When OOrg on the distro you use can support ooxml, does
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that mean you
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are locked it?
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> No.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, it does, and as I keep pointing out, you are always
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> locked-in to a point, the question being the height of the
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> exit barrier, ie., how much will it cost.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> Jim seems unable to process this.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>> if *all* distros *all* lock you in, no matter what, then the
    >>>>>>>>>>>> term is meanigless, and Roy, singling out Linspire for that, is
    >>>>>>>>>>>> equally meaningless.
    >>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>> It's not meaningless, but you're still failing to process the
    >>>>>>>>>>> concept.
    >>>>>>>>>>> The issue is about the cost of exit. The cost can be minimised,
    >>>>>>>>>>> or it
    >>>>>>>>>>> can be maximised. When maximised, it can (as has happened to me
    >>>>>>>>>>> in my day job) amount to millions.
    >>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>> Surely you can see that some situations will be less expensive
    >>>>>>>>>>> to exit from than others?
    >>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>> By now I actually think that you are completely nuts and an
    >>>>>>>>>> imbecile
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>> And yet you still reply - perhaps this is more of a clue about
    >>>>>>>>> thee than me?
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>> You are simply babbling incoherent idiocy with your "exit
    >>>>>>>>>> barriers" with regards to an "import filter" which actually
    >>>>>>>>>> enables to bypass those very "barriers"
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>> I'm sorry that you are finding the concepts confusing; let me try
    >>>>>>>>> to explain it a different way:
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> What part of "import filter" was too difficult for you to
    >>>>>>>> understand? You are as dishonest as Snot in your attempts to bypass
    >>>>>>>> the questions
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> I understood it perfectly well, and explained the issues -
    >>>>>>> presumably you do not understand the situation or the explanation?
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> You explained ****. Your "explanations" are simply utterly
    >>>>>> balderdash. Gob****e. Unadultered garbage
    >>>>>
    >>>>> So you do not understand the situation, or the explanation?
    >>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> MArk, you really are an imbecile. And even more an asshole than DFS
    >>>>>>>> in your dishonesty. That guy is just born stupid and got worse. You
    >>>>>>>> don't have that explanation for your cretinous acts
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>< snip lunatic rant >
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> I really don't understand why you behave this way, Peter. I put a
    >>>>>>> lot of effort into explaining precisely the issue, but you merely
    >>>>>>> delete it
    >>>>>>> and respond with a load of insults. Why bother? It just doesn't
    >>>>>>> seem worth the effort to me.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> You put a lot of effort in mis-explaining the issue.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Come on, tell us: How is an import-filter going to "lock you in".
    >>>>>> Be precise. And stop this lunatic rubbish of the "exit costs".
    >>>>>> It has nothing to do with a filter which allows you to do *more* than
    >>>>>> without it
    >>>>>
    >>>>> I've already done that, Peter, and clearly, you realised that I had,
    >>>>> which is why you deleted it.
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> Idiot
    >>>>
    >>>> And i mean it. You *are* an idiot. Not a tiny little bit better than
    >>>> linux-sux or DFS
    >>>
    >>> As I said above, perhaps you should look in the mirror when hurling some
    >>> of these insults.
    >>>
    >>> If you want to discuss my explanation, I'll be happy to, but deleting it
    >>> and then claiming it to be wrong without any justification is precisely
    >>> what I'd expect from linux-sux or DFS.
    >>>
    >>> If not, why are you wasting bandwidth?
    >>>

    >>
    >> If you /had/ explained how an additional filter is going to lock-in
    >> people, I would have noticed. Instead you blather about "exist costs"
    >> even when none exist. Extremely dishonest way to argue.

    >
    > Exit costs exist on everything, Peter. This is trivial business
    > economics.


    Good. Feel free to explain the exit cost of that filter, then

    > If you don't understand this, then you won't understand lock-in and how
    > it works, and therefore will never understand how non-free filters cause
    > lock-in.


    And you still fail to show *why* that filter will serve as a lock-in

    > Is this, perhaps, because your own business model is based on lock-in,
    > and you are feeling threatened?
    >


    No
    --
    Avoid reality at all costs.


  20. Re: [News] Funny Article Advocating Linux

    ____/ Jim Richardson on Tuesday 02 October 2007 07:22 : \____

    > On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 06:52:52 +0100,
    > Roy Schestowitz wrote:
    >> ____/ Jim Richardson on Tuesday 02 October 2007 05:57 : \____
    >>
    >>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    >>> Hash: SHA1
    >>>
    >>> On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 03:06:43 +0100,
    >>> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
    >>>> ____/ Jim Richardson on Tuesday 02 October 2007 00:14 : \____
    >>>>
    >>>>> No, you're failing to grasp that this is all about Roy's contention that
    >>>>> Linpire locks in it's users.
    >>>>
    >>>> I neither said this nor did I contend. Now, that's just a case of bending
    >>>> the whole discussion.
    >>>>
    >>>> Linspire assists Microsoft's attempts to lock in users.
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> How? by offering a way for former windows users to extract their data
    >>> and save it in open formats?

    >>
    >> Office 2007 wasn't even out yet when the Novell deal was signed. Microsoft
    >> was required to (and reluctantly prepared to) implement ODF support for
    >> Microsoft
    >> Office. Instead, it bribed companies to get the upper arm.
    >>

    >
    > Again you fail to answer the question that was asked.
    >
    > You claimed that Linspire assists Microsofts attempts to lock in users.
    >
    > How?
    >
    > Don't respond with something about Novell or SuSE, that's a different
    > company and distro. Please answer the question you have been
    > asked.


    "Assist" has the wrong tense. Linspire assisted Microsoft when it signed a deal
    that says it would support OOXML 'translators'.

    --
    ~~ Best of wishes

    Roy S. Schestowitz | #00ff00 Day - Basket Case
    http://Schestowitz.com | Open Prospects | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
    Tasks: 176 total, 1 running, 174 sleeping, 0 stopped, 1 zombie
    http://iuron.com - knowledge engine, not a search engine

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