[News] Funny Article Advocating Linux - Linux

This is a discussion on [News] Funny Article Advocating Linux - Linux ; In article , Roy Schestowitz wrote: > > Again you fail to answer the question that was asked. > > > > You claimed that Linspire assists Microsofts attempts to lock in users. > > > > How? > > ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4
Results 61 to 72 of 72

Thread: [News] Funny Article Advocating Linux

  1. Re: [News] Funny Article Advocating Linux

    In article <1235236.9Eyhr3iNKR@schestowitz.com>,
    Roy Schestowitz wrote:
    > > 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'.


    That's nice. Now answer Jim's question.


    --
    --Tim Smith

  2. Re: [News] Funny Article Advocating Linux

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

    On Wed, 03 Oct 2007 00:56:56 +0100,
    Roy Schestowitz wrote:
    > ____/ 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'.
    >



    How does that "Assist MS" in locking in users? if anything, it would
    assist the users in getting *out*

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

    iD8DBQFHAuYqd90bcYOAWPYRAnvFAJ9aEZU9nWs1nR0c9LvzkD aFCqGPgACgtOzC
    QZHugl7XPnmY4LqvtqNYCSo=
    =AOqt
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

    --
    Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
    Life is too short to be taken seriously.
    -- Oscar Wilde

  3. Re: [News] Funny Article Advocating Linux

    ____/ Jim Richardson on Wednesday 03 October 2007 01:45 : \____

    >>> 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'.
    >>

    >
    >
    > How does that "Assist MS" in locking in users? if anything, it would
    > assist the users in getting out


    They were not supposed to be there in the first place. See
    http://boycottnovell.com/2007/09/05/.../#comment-1945
    onwards.

    --
    ~~ Best of wishes

    Roy S. Schestowitz | while (!0==1) echo 'Bill Gates' > /dev/null
    http://Schestowitz.com | RHAT Linux | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
    06:05:01 up 23 days, 4:11, 5 users, load average: 0.48, 0.87, 1.07
    http://iuron.com - Open Source knowledge engine project

  4. Re: [News] Funny Article Advocating Linux

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

    On Wed, 03 Oct 2007 06:09:08 +0100,
    Roy Schestowitz wrote:
    > ____/ Jim Richardson on Wednesday 03 October 2007 01:45 : \____
    >
    >>>> 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'.
    >>>

    >>
    >>
    >> How does that "Assist MS" in locking in users? if anything, it would
    >> assist the users in getting out

    >
    > They were not supposed to be there in the first place. See
    > http://boycottnovell.com/2007/09/05/.../#comment-1945
    > onwards.
    >


    silverlight, is not OOXML, please don't wander around, stick to the
    point.

    How does Linspire's support of OOXML translators "assist MS" in locking
    in users?


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

    iD8DBQFHAzf0d90bcYOAWPYRAmpFAKCP5eEuu1Wvn7hJEpYcf/0cyClJdwCg0guU
    2niw3CqPJdmxPCO6rxpz2MM=
    =bItw
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

    --
    Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
    Smith & Wesson, the *original* point and click interface.

  5. Re: [News] Funny Article Advocating Linux

    ____/ Jim Richardson on Wednesday 03 October 2007 07:34 : \____

    > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    > Hash: SHA1
    >
    > On Wed, 03 Oct 2007 06:09:08 +0100,
    > Roy Schestowitz wrote:
    >> ____/ Jim Richardson on Wednesday 03 October 2007 01:45 : \____
    >>
    >>>>> 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'.
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> How does that "Assist MS" in locking in users? if anything, it would
    >>> assist the users in getting out

    >>
    >> They were not supposed to be there in the first place. See
    >> http://boycottnovell.com/2007/09/05/.../#comment-1945
    >> onwards.
    >>

    >
    > silverlight, is not OOXML, please don't wander around, stick to the
    > point.
    >
    > How does Linspire's support of OOXML translators "assist MS" in locking
    > in users?


    the comments that I link to are about OOXML (ignore the top-level post). The
    translators incorporate Mono as well.

    --
    ~~ Best of wishes

    Roy S. Schestowitz | "Life is too short to proofread"
    http://Schestowitz.com | GNU is Not UNIX | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
    http://iuron.com - proposing a non-profit search engine

  6. Re: [News] Funny Article Advocating Linux

    Roy Schestowitz wrote:

    > ____/ Jim Richardson on Wednesday 03 October 2007 07:34 : \____
    >
    >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    >> Hash: SHA1
    >>
    >> On Wed, 03 Oct 2007 06:09:08 +0100,
    >> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
    >>> ____/ Jim Richardson on Wednesday 03 October 2007 01:45 : \____
    >>>
    >>>>>> 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'.
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> How does that "Assist MS" in locking in users? if anything, it would
    >>>> assist the users in getting out
    >>>
    >>> They were not supposed to be there in the first place. See
    >>>

    http://boycottnovell.com/2007/09/05/.../#comment-1945
    >>> onwards.
    >>>

    >>
    >> silverlight, is not OOXML, please don't wander around, stick to the
    >> point.
    >>
    >> How does Linspire's support of OOXML translators "assist MS" in locking
    >> in users?

    >
    > the comments that I link to are about OOXML (ignore the top-level post).
    > The translators incorporate Mono as well.
    >


    In other words, you are unable to answer very simple questions regarding
    your claims
    --
    "Last I checked, it wasn't the power cord for the Clue Generator that
    was sticking up your ass." - John Novak, rasfwrj


  7. Re: [News] Funny Article Advocating Linux

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

    On Wed, 03 Oct 2007 13:40:25 +0100,
    Roy Schestowitz wrote:
    > ____/ Jim Richardson on Wednesday 03 October 2007 07:34 : \____
    >
    >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    >> Hash: SHA1
    >>
    >> On Wed, 03 Oct 2007 06:09:08 +0100,
    >> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
    >>> ____/ Jim Richardson on Wednesday 03 October 2007 01:45 : \____
    >>>
    >>>>>> 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'.
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> How does that "Assist MS" in locking in users? if anything, it would
    >>>> assist the users in getting out
    >>>
    >>> They were not supposed to be there in the first place. See
    >>> http://boycottnovell.com/2007/09/05/.../#comment-1945
    >>> onwards.
    >>>

    >>
    >> silverlight, is not OOXML, please don't wander around, stick to the
    >> point.
    >>
    >> How does Linspire's support of OOXML translators "assist MS" in locking
    >> in users?

    >
    > the comments that I link to are about OOXML (ignore the top-level post). The
    > translators incorporate Mono as well.
    >



    That still doesn't explain how supporting the translator "assists MS" in
    locking in users. If anything, it would assist the users, in escaping
    lockin.

    If Linspire were configuring OOorg to save in OOXML (or .doc) by
    default, yes, that would be assisting MS in locking in users. Making a
    translator available does not. Any more than OOorg being able to read
    and write .doc files assists MS in locking in users.

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

    iD8DBQFHA+FWd90bcYOAWPYRAozlAJwKin17impFI208aW2Y9O/7HKC10wCg8bYv
    bhqqX3ukqkN8IevvdJgT8qU=
    =1sTK
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

    --
    Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
    Microsoft: "You've got questions. We've got dancing paperclips"

  8. Re: [News] Funny Article Advocating Linux

    ____/ Peter Köhlmann on Wednesday 03 October 2007 14:45 : \____

    > Roy Schestowitz wrote:
    >
    >> ____/ Jim Richardson on Wednesday 03 October 2007 07:34 : \____
    >>
    >>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    >>> Hash: SHA1
    >>>
    >>> On Wed, 03 Oct 2007 06:09:08 +0100,
    >>> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
    >>>> ____/ Jim Richardson on Wednesday 03 October 2007 01:45 : \____
    >>>>
    >>>>>>> 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'.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> How does that "Assist MS" in locking in users? if anything, it would
    >>>>> assist the users in getting out
    >>>>
    >>>> They were not supposed to be there in the first place. See
    >>>>

    > http://boycottnovell.com/2007/09/05/.../#comment-1945
    >>>> onwards.
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> silverlight, is not OOXML, please don't wander around, stick to the
    >>> point.
    >>>
    >>> How does Linspire's support of OOXML translators "assist MS" in locking
    >>> in users?

    >>
    >> the comments that I link to are about OOXML (ignore the top-level post).
    >> The translators incorporate Mono as well.
    >>

    >
    > In other words, you are unable to answer very simple questions regarding
    > your claims


    1. I never made the claim that you claim that I claimed.

    2. Microsoft had a lock-in strategy (OOXML) and it relied on some software
    companies (e.g. Corel, Apple, Xandros, Novell, Linspire) giving their
    endorsement to OOXML.

    --
    ~~ Best of wishes

    Roy S. Schestowitz | Useless fact: the buttocks is the largest muscle
    http://Schestowitz.com | Free as in Free Beer | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
    Load average (/proc/loadavg): 1.16 1.67 1.83 1/180 3466
    http://iuron.com - semantic search engine project initiative

  9. Re: [News] Funny Article Advocating Linux

    Roy Schestowitz wrote:

    > ____/ Peter Köhlmann on Wednesday 03 October 2007 14:45 : \____
    >
    >> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
    >>
    >>> ____/ Jim Richardson on Wednesday 03 October 2007 07:34 : \____
    >>>
    >>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    >>>> Hash: SHA1
    >>>>
    >>>> On Wed, 03 Oct 2007 06:09:08 +0100,
    >>>> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
    >>>>> ____/ Jim Richardson on Wednesday 03 October 2007 01:45 : \____
    >>>>>
    >>>>>>>> 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'.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> How does that "Assist MS" in locking in users? if anything, it would
    >>>>>> assist the users in getting out
    >>>>>
    >>>>> They were not supposed to be there in the first place. See
    >>>>>

    >> http://boycottnovell.com/2007/09/05/.../#comment-1945
    >>>>> onwards.
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> silverlight, is not OOXML, please don't wander around, stick to the
    >>>> point.
    >>>>
    >>>> How does Linspire's support of OOXML translators "assist MS" in locking
    >>>> in users?
    >>>
    >>> the comments that I link to are about OOXML (ignore the top-level post).
    >>> The translators incorporate Mono as well.
    >>>

    >>
    >> In other words, you are unable to answer very simple questions regarding
    >> your claims

    >
    > 1. I never made the claim that you claim that I claimed.
    >
    > 2. Microsoft had a lock-in strategy (OOXML) and it relied on some software
    > companies (e.g. Corel, Apple, Xandros, Novell, Linspire) giving their
    > endorsement to OOXML.
    >


    So you *still* fail to explain how Linspire is "locking in" users with the
    OOXML filter

    Nice done, Roy. Erik F or Hadron Quark could not have beem more evasive
    after doing a totally idiotic claim

    BTW: Your trustworthyness is by now practically non-existant. Rejoice. You
    are now in the same eague as Erik Fukenbusch. Nothing you write can be
    taken at face value
    --
    Howe's Law: Everyone has a scheme that will not work.


  10. Re: [News] Funny Article Advocating Linux

    Peter Khlmann espoused:
    > Mark Kent wrote:
    >
    >> Peter Khlmann espoused:
    >>> Mark Kent wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> Peter Khlmann espoused:
    >>>>> Mark Kent wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> Peter Khlmann espoused:
    >>>>>>> Mark Kent wrote:
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> Peter Khlmann espoused:
    >>>>>>>>> Mark Kent wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>> Peter Khlmann 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
    >


    I did, Peter, and you deleted it.

    >> 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


    Sounds like it 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 |

  11. 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:
    >>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>> 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
    >>

    >
    > I did, Peter, and you deleted it.


    No, you did not. I deleted irrelevant idiocy which has nothing to do
    with "lock-in".
    That was just your lame attempt to do a "Snot". You still failed to explain
    how a filter will lock people in.

    And stop this disnonest idiocy about "exit costs". They simply don't apply
    for that filter, as it enables users to do the "exit" without *any* costs

    But you are too dishonest to admit that, as it would tumble your imbecile
    arguments
    >
    >>> 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

    >
    > Sounds like it to me.
    >


    What it sounds like to you is equally irrelevant.
    --
    Just out of curiosity does this actually mean something or have some
    of the few remaining bits of your brain just evaporated?


  12. Re: [News] Funny Article Advocating Linux

    Peter Khlmann espoused:
    > Mark Kent wrote:
    >
    >> Peter Khlmann espoused:
    >>> Mark Kent wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> Peter Khlmann espoused:
    >>>>> Mark Kent wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> Peter Khlmann espoused:
    >>>>>>> Mark Kent wrote:
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> Peter Khlmann espoused:
    >>>>>>>>> Mark Kent wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>> Peter Khlmann espoused:
    >>>>>>>>>>> Mark Kent wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>> Peter Khlmann 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
    >>>

    >>
    >> I did, Peter, and you deleted it.

    >
    > No, you did not. I deleted irrelevant idiocy which has nothing to do
    > with "lock-in".


    Lock-in is an exit barrier, Peter. It's how it works. No amount of
    abusive responses will change that.

    > That was just your lame attempt to do a "Snot". You still failed to explain
    > how a filter will lock people in.


    I explained it, you deleted it. Truth was too hard to handle, I
    presume?

    >
    > And stop this disnonest idiocy about "exit costs". They simply don't apply
    > for that filter, as it enables users to do the "exit" without *any* costs


    I explained this, you deleted it.

    >
    > But you are too dishonest to admit that, as it would tumble your imbecile
    > arguments


    If you really believed that, you wouldn't have deleted it.

    >>
    >>>> 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

    >>
    >> Sounds like it to me.
    >>

    >
    > What it sounds like to you is equally irrelevant.


    I think you're 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 |

+ Reply to Thread
Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4