Comments

• G. Michaels

  2008-12-04 23:03:58

  Oh, the argument about "the comments there support my conclusions". I think it would be better to stop relying on that Roy, considering any of those comments could come from your collaborators that run rampage on Slashdot and everywhere else to shill and promote your blog.
  
  If your friend Will Hill (a.k.a 'twitter') is doing that in Slashdot, who knows where else he's engaging in the same dishonest tactics in order to benefit you?
  
  Note: writer of this comment adds absolutely nothing but stalking and personal attacks against readers, as documented here.

• Goblin

  2008-12-05 01:06:38

  I completely agree with Roys (and many other unconnected sites) opinions of Moonlight.
  
  Unfortunately you seem to suggest that its all some organized attack orchestrated by Roy. Now either you are in awe of Roy and believe him to be the "leader" of many anti Moonlight stances, or you are incredibly foolish and want to blame this particular site as the root of all evil.
  
  I think you will find that regardless of what sites are saying, people dont want Moonlight, theres very little need for it in the sites I go to and its got the MS taint that says to me DRM & Dollars.
  
  The BBC doesnt want Moonlight, and major sites have dropped Silverlight already.
  
  Mr Michaels. You've given no counter argument that I can see, merely a list of your beliefs in regards to some conspiracy theory you have.
  
  I thought the comments part of a site was for people to debate. You seem to think it a forum to declare your theories on Roy.

• Roy Schestowitz

  2008-12-05 01:09:34

  The claims are libelous too. I ask nobody to link to here. If people like what they read, they might link, which often them do (we were in Slashdot today).

• Goblin

  2008-12-05 01:25:21

  "The claims are libelous too. I ask nobody to link to here. If people like what they read, they might link, which often them do (we were in Slashdot today). "
  
  I will vouch for that.
  
  I have linked this site on MS watch before, and have never even mentioned it to you (until now)

• pcolon

  2008-12-05 03:57:50

  Microsoft/Novell acknowledges:
  
  FOSS has no Achilles heel of financial dependency to any major corporation. No marketshare to be driven down or up and can only guess at it's installed base.
  
  FOSS has assembled a huge voluntary development pool Microsoft can't even begin to latch on to or have enough money to buy.
  
  Apologists say FOSS cannot catch up to Microsoft. Based on merit of the wares, it's Microsoft who's breathing FOSS's dust.
  
  In its effort to taint FOSS with its patent-ware under the guise of interoperability is deceiving and disingenuous. A snake can shed its skin, but it remains a snake. There can be no truce with the convicted monopolist.

• G. Michaels

  2008-12-05 05:22:30

  @Goblin,
  
  That you agree with him or not is irrelevant. My point is that Roy and his nymshifter friends are engaged in a game of manufacturing consent by shilling opinions. That's not directed at people like you or pcolon the poet here, since that would be preaching to the choir at best.
  
  I don't think that's a particularly bizarre theory given the evidence - at least no more "out there" than most of the conspiracy theories they themselves tend to use as droll simplifications to explain the symptoms of the animosity they create with that trademark abrasive "evangelism" they like so much.
  
  I don't have a problem with whatever it is you believe. Heck, I think it's not even far off the mark most of the time. However, force feeding those beliefs to other people using dishonest tactics and lies (and attacking individuals and disrupting communities in the process) is quite another thing.
  
  Cheers :)
  
  Note: writer of this comment adds absolutely nothing but stalking and personal attacks against readers, as documented here.