Comments

• Yuhong Bao

  2009-06-17 15:51:34

  "Notice who is being told that the “bad app” was being built? Paul Maritz, the current CEO of VMware. What is shown above is criminal bevaviour, but none of those involved is behind bars." Is creating a bad app to crash OS/2 and using it as a demo really criminal? I don't think so. What would be interesting however is getting a copy of that bad app used to crash OS/2 in the demo and disassemble it using an OS/2 capable disassembler. IDA Pro for example supports OS/2 and thus can be used for this.

• Roy Schestowitz

  2009-06-17 16:02:28

  Is creating a bad app to crash OS/2 and using it as a demo really criminal? I don’t think so.

  
  
  Most crimes are not committed with physical, concrete weapons.

• Yuhong Bao

  2009-06-17 16:06:42

  "Most crimes are not committed with physical, concrete weapons." Indeed a crime is a crime regardless of how it is committed. I mean, is doing a demo to illustrate a competitor's weakness in general itself a crime? I don't think so.

• Roy Schestowitz

  2009-06-17 16:10:19

  Do you propose a gentle slap on the wrist?

• Yuhong Bao

  2009-06-17 16:19:34

  I am not sure, I just want you to tell you that doing this kind of thing in general is not a crime.

• Yuhong Bao

  2009-06-17 16:23:39

  In fact, I think there is nothing wrong with demoing a competitor's weakness for marketing purposes. Don't get me wrong, I know for example about AARD, and it was intentional sabotage of DR-DOS period.

• Roy Schestowitz

  2009-06-17 16:36:30

  I think your perception of law & ethics needs readjustment. This is not as serious as crashing your competitor's airliners, but Microsoft was found guilty of similar behaviour, so the courts do not agree with you.

• Yuhong Bao

  2009-06-17 16:44:16

  "This is not as serious as crashing your competitor’s airliners," Of course not, that certainly would be a crime period and of course the airline industry is not that stupid. "but Microsoft was found guilty of similar behaviour, so the courts do not agree with you." Links to evidence please.

• Roy Schestowitz

  2009-06-17 16:54:13

  You've already mentioned AARD.

• pcolon

  2009-06-17 19:22:30

  The .pdf clearly state their intentions, behaviour and collusion.
  
  "I promise, I won't sting you if you carry me across the river".

• Jose_X

  2009-06-17 20:14:12

  Did OS/2 have bugs? It likely did. Exploit a bug for an impressive crash, sure, but is that a fair analysis of a product? Did Windows not have bugs? more bugs? Was IBM doing the same to sell OS/2 over Windows? This is called deception. It's selling you raw sttt by convincing you that all food might have a certain amount of fecal matter.
  
  Without being illegal, there is the issue of ethics and of Microsoft having conflicting goals with consumers and with the wider Linux community. Plus, we are all humans. Microsoft, if their ethics level is below average, will likely have their "crossing the line into illegal actions" average to be above average. Their primary focus is not on product quality, I suspect, because they know that they have many tricks and money is best invested in what allows them to best build and protect a monopoly (tricks/deception, hardball, strategic bribing, etc.. over product quality, honest advertizing, and general fair play). When you are good with tricks, you get lazy with product quality. Did Vista wipe Microsoft out? No. They knew that. They knew they had to go for protecting the business model than for giving customers a better product and a comfortable choice.
  
  Microsoft extremisms aside, in general, sellers are at odds in their goals with buyers. "Linux" is a product built significantly by buyers. A major form of compensation to many of the seller-buyers is lots of freebies contributed by others (you contribute X but get back 100,000X). Linux empowers the many. It has a neutralizing effect on many types of tricks because competition cannot be easily snuffed (and many Microsoft tricks are designed to snuff competitors). Linux supports free fair markets. That is a fundamental reason why Linux is different than past challenges to Microsoft (and than Windows) and a threat to Microsoft.
  
  To fight Linux, Microsoft wants to exploit the contributions without having to give up anything of strategic value to their monopoly based business and while poisoning the well so that others don't get 100,000X back. Don't all sellers share these goals? Yes... no. Not specifically, because unlike for many sellers, Linux would represent a significant step down for Microsoft (in position and in future capabilities) leaving a void to be filled in by a larger number of players.
  
  In any case, legal or no, Microsoft should be respected (in the sense of feared not revered) for their willingness to gain the upper hand of a situation and exploit it as much as necessary for them to remain in control. "Did you really dot __every__ single i?" Remember, they don't work by themselves. They turn groups against each other, not gratuitously, but usually with some percentage of the factions helping them out.

• Roy Schestowitz

  2009-06-17 20:31:49

  "Diversionary tactics, holding action, and retreats may each seem contrary to the achievement of the overall objective when considered solely in their own terms, but taken in light of the overall conflict, may contribute to overall success. In the Chinese Civil War that followed World War II, Mao Tse Tung's Army ran away from every battle, until they won the war. They knew that overall victory, not local victory, was the objective."
  
  Source:
  
  

  

• Yggdrasil

  2009-06-18 00:18:24

  I think it's important for readers to notice that Roy is asked a direct question: Yuhong - "Is creating a bad app to crash OS/2 and using it as a demo really criminal?"
  
  His response? Roy - "Most crimes are not committed with physical, concrete weapons."
  
  He answers with a fact that most people would argue to be true. But he does not answer the question asked, and he does not give a direct 'Yes' or 'No' answer. Let's continue.
  
  Yet another question is given to Roy, because he dodged the first question: Yuhong - "I mean, is doing a demo to illustrate a competitor’s weakness in general itself a crime?"
  
  Again, Roy shuffles to avoid the question: Roy - "Do you propose a gentle slap on the wrist?"
  
  Jackpot! Notice his tactic? Rather than state Microsoft is guilty, he avoids this and jumps to a question asking about punishment. Roy CAN NOT answer the question directly. If he does, it's game over. Roy can't answer, "Yes, Microsoft committed a crime", because Roy knows this is not correct. He also can't answer, "No, it's not a crime", because that would be treating Microsoft in a favorable way and losing the argument with the reader, appearing weak.
  
  Trapped by irrational hate, Roy is unable to answer a simple question, forced to dance around the topic until it is soon forgotten by the impending avalanche of tomorrows stories. Roy says Microsoft hasn't been honest, but has Roy been honest with you?

• Yggdrasil

  2009-06-17 23:50:45

  I enjoyed the rip on Ed Bott. While it's laughable to imagine a print journalist can be bribed with a laptop, I'm willing to bet you'd entertain the idea that Ed was kissing Microsoft's ass all these years just to get it. As if somehow every journalist, reporter, and editor should hate Microsoft as much as you, and anyone who ever expressed favorable interest in their products must have been getting kickbacks.
  
  Where is this smoking gun? We read: "The new executive editor, Ed Bott, was highly interested in our product plans and we can work with them for good coverage on Windows 3.1 and Windows NT."
  
  Shouldn't it say: "The new executive editor, Ed Bott, we should start sending this guy free gifts and convince him to say positive things about Microsoft. Let's promise him a laptop 17 years from now if he stays in our favor! You know those journalists are regular starving artists!"
  
  Bonus points to Yuhong Bao, he's on the right track. Creating a program that does something no program should be able to do, such as crash the host OS or interfere with other programs, is a great demonstration of a system's flaws. IBM would have been wise to do the same. Rather than face this fact, you intentionally mislead readers by using the word "Sabotage". That would be applicable if a Microsoft employee donned a ninja outfit, sneaked into a product demo showroom after hours and planted the faulty program in the OS/2 demo's script. Except... that isn't even close to what happened in reality.

• David "Lefty" Schlesinger

  2009-06-18 16:56:46

  ...criminal bevaviour...
  
  I'm interested in knowing which statute was broken, Roy. Presumably, if you're calling people "criminals", you must have something in mind here.

• Roy Schestowitz

  2009-06-18 17:10:15

  Hi David,
  
  Here are some recommended readings:
  
  

  • ms-final.pdf [PDF]
  
  
  
  • ms-final2.pdf [PDF]
  
  
  
  • ms-conclusions.pdf [PDF]
  
  
  
  • ms-findings2.pdf [PDF]

• David "Lefty" Schlesinger

  2009-06-18 17:39:00

  Hi, Roy,
  
  There isn't a single word in any of those "recommended readings" which is relevant to the question I asked, and suggesting that I plow through them looking for one is disingenuous, to say the least.
  
  I asked a very specific question, but let me try again: you have claimed that developing and demonstrating a program intended to crash a competitive operating system is "criminal behavior".
  
  So, having essentially demanded that someone be charged with a crime for this, exactly what crime did you have in mind? I mean, to make such a claim, you'd have had to have something fairly specific in mind, wouldn't you....?
  
  I don't believe it is "criminal behavior" at all, and in fact, I don't believe it's even unethical behavior, if you get right down to it. If a competing operating system is crash prone or has security flaws, there's nothing wrong, that I can see, with demonstrating that those problems exist. The competition is welcome to try to do the same thing.
  
  I've spent some significant time in the past year outlining concrete security problems in Android, for example, arguably a competitor to some of my efforts. I've done so publicly, at conferences, in presentations, and in front of employees of Google while on a panel at last year's Collaboration Summit. Have I broken the law? Am I a fugitive felon? I'm sure there are at least a couple of folks over in Mountain View who'd be very interested in learning if there's any possibility of them getting me locked up over this...

• Roy Schestowitz

  2009-06-18 19:55:45

  Hi David,
  
  Your ideas of ethics and crime are different from mine (for that matter, some laws are unethical and some unethical things ought to be illegal, too).
  
  The references to Judge Jackson that I give you were probably not read by you. He called them "criminals" (Ballmer et al).

• Jose_X

  2009-06-18 20:47:19

  >> I don’t believe it is “criminal behavior” at all, and in fact, I don’t believe it’s even unethical behavior, if you get right down to it.
  
  I haven't read everything, but I don't think there is enough information to say there was criminal behavior.
  
  There is evidence to suggest unethical behavior. For example, you said: >> I’ve spent some significant time in the past year outlining concrete security problems in Android, for example, arguably a competitor to some of my efforts. I’ve done so publicly, at conferences, in presentations, and in front of employees of Google while on a panel at last year’s Collaboration Summit.
  
  What we have above is a top Microsoft exec working with a partner and dissing that same partner behind their back in private sales efforts, possibly from an easy to fix bug. You don't see them going public or to IBM as a researcher might do.
  
  If someone wants to dig up more stuff, consider searching to see if Microsoft themselves placed that weakness in OS/2. I doubt that is revealed, but that would truly be an ugly spot.
  
  We do have to imagine IBM would have become aware of this at some point. How did they react? Was this around the time they realized that working with Microsoft is a bad idea?
  
  Software gets bugs. Could you imagine if the first virus to take down Windows was marketed to sell OS/2 over Windows?
  
  Some people have "faulted" IBM, who had been heavily targeted by antitrust officials for a while leading into this, for not being aggressive against Microsoft. In fact, Boies [iirc, as quoted on groklaw] had more than just a few words to say on this psychological effect of IBM and actually used this to try and support some ideas/theories he had about antitrust effects. [Microsoft hasn't appeared to me to have been thwarted much by antitrust actions of the past.]
  
  If we had access to the IBM-MS agreements, that might also help.
  
  OK, just went back to the story: >> To re-iterate what we have here, Microsoft used a “bad app” to take on the road to crash on OS/2. This sets a good background for other stories of Microsoft's attack on OS/2 — a subject which we carry on documenting.
  
  Perhaps the criticism here is over you calling Microsoft "criminal" based solely on the evidence presented in this blog piece.
  
  >> > It praises the better windows than windows capability - including “one of the best attributes of windows applications run within Os/2 is the superior system intgrity. Should an application crash you can just closre the session and continue. No need to close down and restart.
  
  OK, so apparently, in contrast to Windows, OS/2 generally performed better in various ways and handled crashing apps smarter.
  
  I'm getting the feeling that the people making buying decisions are not that sophisticated technically or don't do simple things like to ask the competitor about the issue so that they have an opportunity to give their side or address the problem (or maybe they did.. how did IBM react?).
  
  The other related side of this is Microsoft more than willing to take advantage of this, perhaps specifically counting on the naivete or Microsoft directed trusting bent (or ignorance) of their audience. They are more than happy to exploit a bug within dramatic private sales presentations in order to take share away from what had (and I think has) been generally recognized to be a superior platform. It's like finding the low probability data point and then basing most of the sales effort on that. That is misleading and for that reason possibly illegal. It would even more likely be illegal if there were monopolies being defended or leveraged.
  
  Am I making sense? Do people know more details? Are those here defending Microsoft aware of more details but not being forward about this?

• David "Lefty" Schlesinger

  2009-06-18 20:04:51

  You persist in dodging the extremely direct question here, Roy. People can (and do) differ on ethics, but "crime" has a pretty specific meaning, defined (in the US, anyway) by the criminal statutes of the Federal, state and local governments, When you say someone has committed "criminal behavior", either you can cite a statue that they've violated, or you're simply talking irresponsibly.
  
  I've read the materials you've provided numerous times, I assure you, and the judge calling "Ballmer et al." "criminals" in that context certainly doesn't imply that everything that they've done, previously and subsequently, is automatically "criminal behavior" by virtue of that fact.
  
  One more time: you've claimed that developing and demonstrating a program which crashes a competitor's operating system is "criminal behavior".
  
  So, name the crime, Roy. It's a simple question and, as I said,it would seem that either you can answer it, or you've just been indulging in something that would seem to range somewhere between "histrionic exaggeration" and "deliberate defamation"...

• Roy Schestowitz

  2009-06-18 20:07:50

  Conlin in Comes vs Microsoft called it "technical sabotage". They charged Microsoft using this evidence.
  
  You seem keen to defend this.

• Sabayon User (Sabayon == Gentoo, kthx)

  2009-06-18 20:30:09

  No Roy, what you enjoy characterizing as a defense of Microsoft are merely challenges to your inaccuracies. Because if my memory does not fail me, you have been utterly unable to prove that any of the people you call "Microsoft trolls" are in any way shape or form associated with them. Or with Novell. If you were you able to actually provide that, you would have done that a long time ago.
  
  You seem keen to continue to be self-delusional about this. Most of us who "heckle" you are members of the FOSS community, and we loathe being associated with you in any way. Since you cannot believe that someone would even think about criticizing you, your reflexive response is to simply dismiss all of it as a vague conspiracy against your person by corporations that don't even know you exist.
  
  The problem at this point is that I'm not sure if you're just being obtuse or you're quite aware of what the problem is and this is your methodology for dealing with it.

• Jose_X

  2009-06-18 21:34:57

  >> Since you cannot believe that someone would even think about criticizing you, your reflexive response is to simply dismiss all of it as a vague conspiracy against your person by corporations that don’t even know you exist.
  
  If people are really here to support FOSS, they should be more even-handed in their criticisms. Doesn't that make sense?
  
  How frequently have you, Sabayon User (Sabayon == Gentoo, kthx), contributed on these forums to pointing out abuses against FOSS or tried to point out problems in those defending a point that is favorable to Microsoft?
  
  I would be curious to know what is your position on Microsoft, eg, on issues such as ethics, unfair or illegal actions towards competitors, the degree to which they are threatened by gentoo or sabayon should these gain marketshare, etc.
  
  I am sure Microsoft has people that use gentoo on their "payroll" (or support partners that support these individuals) with the intent to find ways to thwart any spread of gentoo/Linux except perhaps some very small Linux gains that might help Microsoft strategically. In this case, such an individual would be representing Microsoft and not Linux if their views are intended to help Microsoft with a higher priority than to help Linux.
  
  I suppose I could ask you if you think you are one of these people, or, more specifically, if you support the advancement of gentoo/Linux as a significantly higher priority than whatever might help Microsoft.
  
  OK, I'm asking.
  
  Also, I should ask if you self censor yourself in ways that might be negative to Microsoft or to Novell, or for that matter to any company.
  
  Answering any or these questions (preferably all of them) would help future discussions since it will help prevent misunderstandings. For example, if we know you are unlikely to say anything negative about a company, that will help some readers not over-react.
  
  Please be as specific as possible (to help us out the most possible).

• Jose_X

  2009-06-18 21:46:34

  >> Also, I should ask if you self censor yourself in ways that might be negative to Microsoft or to Novell, or for that matter to any company.
  
  What I meant was if you self-censor yourself to avoid saying what you believe might be likely to place Microsoft or Novell in what many might say is a negative light (ie, make either of these companies look bad)? If yes, do you do so to the same degree as you do with just about any other company?
  
  I suppose I could ask if you have any particular company you don't mind nearly as much in placing in a negative light.
  
  These two questions could be repeated with respect to technologies, perhaps replacing Microsoft and Novell with something like MSdotnet and mono (resp).
  
  Also, let me ask if you are more focused on placing Roy and boycottnovell in a negative light than you are in pointing out issues brought up here that are important to the growth or stagnation of Linux?

• Sabayon User (Sabayon == Gentoo, kthx)

  2009-06-18 20:13:49

  See the thread here, starting with the comment where Roy says Microsoft "broke laws to bury Borland".
  
  Uncanny, isn't it?

• Roy Schestowitz

  2009-06-18 20:32:29

  “Rival companies, like Borland International and the Lotus Development Corporation, have contended that Microsoft tried to block companies offering other operating systems by using unfair licensing practices and other tactics. Some companies have also said that Microsoft used various dirty tricks, including what the industry calls “vaporware,” to leverage its expansion from MS-DOS into almost every kind of software for desktop computers.”
  
  http://www.nytimes.com/1995/02/15/us/judge-rejects-us-antitrust-pact-with-microsoft.html
  
  "Sabayon User" still uses Windows to visit this site. Smells like Astroturfing.

• David "Lefty" Schlesinger

  2009-06-18 20:47:27

  Sigh. Come on, Roy, at least try to keep up here.
  
  A "contention", and an unrelated one at that, reported in the New York Times is not evidence of a crime being committed, nor does it identify the criminal statue you've claimed is being broken here.
  
  Let's cut to the chase, Roy: either you should identify the crime being committed here, or you should retract your erroneous claim that what you describe is "criminal behavior".
  
  Do you have any friends who are lawyers? You might want to discuss your activities here with them, because I'd have to imagine that you're increasingly likely to find yourself on the receiving end of a defamation suit if you keep this sort of thing up...

• David "Lefty" Schlesinger

  2009-06-18 21:02:55

  Roy, I've worked in this industry for more than three decades. There's not a whole lot I'm "new to".
  
  I am a bit surprised at your inability to debate and support pretty much a single point here. GIven the volume you produce, I'd have thought you'd be better at it, but in all fairness the claims you're making are pretty darned difficult to actually suppport.
  
  I'm more disturbed than surprised by your recourse to various forms of marginalization, be it accusation of "astroturfing" or little red comments after the contributions of posters who make you look bad or with whom you disagree. I'm very disturbed by the willingness to invade people's privacy and to make completely unsupported allegations of "censorship", "bribery" and "criminal behavior" shown around here, coupled with a complete unwillingness to correct mistakes when you must know, beyond any reasonable doubt, that they are mistakes.
  
  That's the "flagrant" part, by the way.

• Roy Schestowitz

  2009-06-18 21:03:09

  Speaking of defamation, you may want to rethink those false accusations against me. Stop being hypocritical.

• David "Lefty" Schlesinger

  2009-06-18 21:09:42

  I suppose I'd need to know which ones they are before I can "rethink" them, Roy.
  
  What "false accusations" have I made against you? Please be specific so I know what to "rethink".

• Roy Schestowitz

  2009-06-18 21:12:36

  I had nothing to do with the trolling in the Ubuntu mailing lists or the person who did this.

• David "Lefty" Schlesinger

  2009-06-18 21:19:59

  That's your claim. I dispute that, based on the evidence I have in hand, which I've presented. If you think I'm defaming you by standing by this position, by all means, take me to court over it, I don't mind settling it there.
  
  I'd remind you that the truth is a complete defense against charges of defamation, and that I'll have the entertaining opportunity to depose you, and potentially all of your friends here, under oath and penalty of perjury, during the process of discovery.
  
  Still wanna dance?

• Roy Schestowitz

  2009-06-18 21:21:55

  I know the truth, David. I don't need to contest people who who deny the truth.

• David "Lefty" Schlesinger

  2009-06-18 21:31:57

  Well, I know the truth, too, Roy, and I say it's what I've been consistently saying it is, and I further say that the evidence supports me here, and not you.
  
  Now--and I'll say this only once--if you want to accuse me of defaming you, you had better be prepared to put your money where your mouth is. That's a serious charge, and if you're not ready to back it up with action, if you're making it to impress your friends, or in the expectation that I'll take it lightly, then that would be a significant error on your part. If that's your thinking, Roy, I strongly advise you, don't make such a claim.
  
  There's a saying about not letting your mouth write checks your ass can't cover. Ever hear that one, Roy?

• Roy Schestowitz

  2009-06-18 21:36:02

  Well, I know the truth, too, Roy

  
  
  No, you can only assume, which you do wrongly. I am the one being accused and I know that the accusations are false. You’re the one doing guesswork based on some zealot who sent you mail.

• Sabayon User (Sabayon == Gentoo, kthx)

  2009-06-18 21:47:36

  I will post a comment to your blog from home, using Linux, right after hell freezes over.
  
  I'll let you know when that happens, so you can waste time grep'ing through your Apache logs, an activity that you seem to love so much.

• Roy Schestowitz

  2009-06-18 21:50:11

  Escape from question noted.

• David "Lefty" Schlesinger

  2009-06-18 20:37:36

  Well, given what else I've seen on this site--blatant and known misstatements of fact allowed to stand, outright duplicity (silly me! When Roy said "I don't know Mark Fink", I thought he meant that he didn't know Mark Fink!)--no, it's not actually all that surprising. I'm not personally finding Roy's dedication to the truth to be up to what I would have ordinarily considered "journalistic standards"...
  
  For the record: I have never worked for Microsoft or for Novell, in any capacity whatsoever, nor have I ever received anything from Microsoft or Novell--outside of a t-shirt at a conference, possibly--that I haven't paid for. In my decade at Apple I was not involved in any projects that involved any interaction at all with engineering teams at Microsoft or Novell. I don't hold stock in either of those companies, or have any other financial interest in them, either, for that matter.

• Roy Schestowitz

  2009-06-18 20:40:18

  I made no accusations against you. Nice straw man you have there.

• David "Lefty" Schlesinger

  2009-06-18 20:49:44

  Given that simply using a Windows PC is sufficient evidence for you to cry "Astroturfing!", I thought it best to head off any such criticisms before they arose. I'm not sure you want to use the phrase "straw man" when it's behavior that you're clearly prone to apply to others who question and critique you here.

• Roy Schestowitz

  2009-06-18 20:53:22

  You must be new to AstroTurfing.

• David "Lefty" Schlesinger

  2009-06-18 21:03:55

  See my reply on the previous thread.

• Roy Schestowitz

  2009-06-18 21:07:39

  The ones at risk of defamation are the likes of Edelman, ACT, DCI, ATL, CompTIA, LawMedia, and Waggener Edstrom , who are organising AstroTurfs. And if you think it's exaggeration, then you have more to learn.

• David "Lefty" Schlesinger

  2009-06-18 21:11:42

  And you can identify these churls because they post from Windows machines exclusively and they're the only ones who ever do...?
  
  What?

• Roy Schestowitz

  2009-06-18 21:14:34

  Slashdot is full of them too. A Slashdot admin told me. PJ adopted a moderation policy because of them.

• David "Lefty" Schlesinger

  2009-06-18 21:24:48

  Slashdot is full of a lot of things, but I don't really see the relevance.
  
  I'm posting from a MacBook Pro, running OS/X at the moment. Does that make me an Astroturfer, too? How about if I run across the room and turn on the Vista machine I've got squirreled away someplace? Or the Ubuntu laptop that's sitting next to the Mac...?
  
  I'd think that the OS from which people post is a poor predictor of their integrity. I generally prefer to actually read what they write.

• Roy Schestowitz

  2009-06-18 21:29:35

  David,
  
  Again: you're attack a straw man. I never accused you of that.
  
  As for "Gentoo user", you apparently know little or nothing about this perp, which does the same thing in Slashdot and stalks Microsoft opposition.

• Sabayon User (Sabayon == Gentoo, kthx)

  2009-06-18 21:29:59

  Slashdot is full of them too. A Slashdot admin told me

  
  
  You've made this claim before. Let's examine it in detail. Which Slashdot admin told you this? Please be specific.
  
  How is this subversion of Slashdot taking place? In the stories posted? Since Slashdot does not work like Digg and the Slashdot admins actually select the stories that make it to the front page (regardless of how many votes something has or doesn't have in the Firehose, assuming people don't simply submit stories in the old way), that means that Microsoft has effectively subverted someone who works at OSTG. Someone who has the power to include or exclude stories from the front page of one of the most visited web sites in the world.
  
  This is AMAZING NEWS Roy! Why hasn't this been made public? Imagine the backslash and the black eye on Microsoft. Why not just expose it? Is it because it implies wrongdoing on the part of the people who run Slashdot? Or because you simply made it up? Or because they told you something and you're simply twisting it out of context so you can use it as a blurb, but it's impossible to back up with facts?
  
  Is this just another case of you having "secret information" that cannot be shared but totally supports your arguments?

• Sabayon User (Sabayon == Gentoo, kthx)

  2009-06-18 21:57:49

  you apparently know little or nothing about this perp

  
  
  Ha, ha. perp? hahahahaha!!
  
  

  which does the same thing in Slashdot and stalks Microsoft opposition.

  
  
  I'm dying to see your evidence that I do mysterious evil things on Slashdot. I'm sure you have that evidence, otherwise you wouldn't even bring something like that up. Most sentient people wouldn't, at least. Or is that some more of that tasty secret information that you cannot share?
  
  Please provide evidence to back up your claims, or stop making them.

• Roy Schestowitz

  2009-06-18 21:59:47

  I am not obliged to reveal verifiable sources. I was explicitly asked not to do so (by the source).

• Sabayon User (Sabayon == Gentoo, kthx)

  2009-06-18 22:39:23

  I am not obliged to reveal verifiable sources. I was explicitly asked not to do so (by the source).

  
  
  No Roy, you do. You do because you use that information to impress people, to give yourself an air of faux "insiderism" and to try to make your "arguments" more believable. If that wasn't the case, then we wouldn't be having this conversation.
  
  Let me give you an example. When Microsoft says Linux infringes on 200+ patents of theirs, then they are under the obligation to specify which patents are those. If they don't, then we have a word for that kind of thing - FUD.
  
  Or do you just assume the rules around these things don't apply to you?

• David "Lefty" Schlesinger

  2009-06-18 22:43:29

  I'd point out that, in a real journalistic setting, reporters have editors to whom they are obligated to reveal their sources, thus providing a check and a balance on a reporter's ability to just make up things and attribute them to "sources which cannot be revealed".
  
  I sense no such checks and balances at work around here.

• Roy Schestowitz

  2009-06-18 21:34:35

  Well, I know the truth, too

  
  
  No, you can only assume, which you do wrongly. I am the one being accused and I know that the accusations are false. You're the one doing guesswork based on some zealot who sent you mail.

• David "Lefty" Schlesinger

  2009-06-18 21:39:09

  Whatever you say, Roy. But from where I'm standing, it looks very much like the lies and fabrications began with your very first communication to me here--"I don't know Mark Fink"--and continued, moving swiftly downhill, from there.
  
  Think that's defamatory? You know what to do about it, Roy.

• Roy Schestowitz

  2009-06-18 21:45:58

  I still don't know who Mark Fink is. For all I know, it sounds like a fake name because someone who read your comments mailed me to say:
  
  "it could very well be true that "Mark" was merely a "fink" in the American definition of the word and that [David] got played for a fool. [David] was simply looking for material to confirm his prejudice and wasn't interested in hearing anything else. Too bad. I was hoping that he had more integrity than that, but I was wrong."

• David "Lefty" Schlesinger

  2009-06-18 22:00:21

  Well, let me refresh your clearly problematic memory:
  
  Mark Fink is the guy who drives copious amounts of traffic to this site whenever he starts up an anti-Mono flamewar, something he does several times a year.
  
  He's a fellow you referred to directly in comments on FSDaily, and with whom you exchanged comments on this site, offering to let him edit a page here.
  
  He's the guy who you told me you "denounced", when in fact you sent him messages encouraging him, the only concern expressed being that he wasn't distancing himself enough from this web site.
  
  He's the guy who, in spite of numerous demonstrated interactions between you and him, both at first and second hand, you simply told me "I don't know [him]", as opposed to "I'm well aware of him and his activities", which appears to be the actual case, again based on concrete evidence that anyone can examine for themselves.
  
  So, exactly what meaning was I supposed to take from "I don't know Mark Fink", Roy?

• Roy Schestowitz

  2009-06-18 22:10:34

  Mark Fink is the guy who drives copious amounts of traffic to this site

  
  
  The site delivers about a million pages per month (depending on how it's measured). Don't insinuate that a development mailing list is more than a blip on the radar.
  
  

  He’s a fellow you referred to directly in comments on FSDaily, and with whom you exchanged comments on this site, offering to let him edit a page here.

  
  
  Like many others, I knew the name from a distance.
  
  

  He’s a fellow you referred to directly in comments on FSDaily, and with whom you exchanged comments on this site, offering to let him edit a page here.

  
  
  I made similar offers to other strangers who showed up in the site.
  
  

  He’s the guy who you told me you “denounced”, when in fact you sent him messages encouraging him, the only concern expressed being that he wasn’t distancing himself enough from this web site.

  
  
  Nope. You never saw my message to him. You selectively cited some followup which was intended to daemonise me.
  
  

  He’s the guy who, in spite of numerous demonstrated interactions between you and him, both at first and second hand, you simply told me “I don’t know [him]“, as opposed to “I’m well aware of him and his activities”, which appears to be the actual case, again based on concrete evidence that anyone can examine for themselves.

  
  
  I still don't know him and I doubt there's a person with such a name, especially after somewhat told me what the name might mean.
  
  

  So, exactly what meaning was I supposed to take from “I don’t know Mark Fink”, Roy?

  
  
  I don't speak to him, I don't know the person. I knew the name because he trolled the Ubuntu mailing lists last year. Many others knew him too for that same reason.

• David "Lefty" Schlesinger

  2009-06-18 22:22:11

  ...I knew the name... I knew the name...
  
  And yet, in spite of being admittedly aware of Mr. Fink's activities, you simply said "I don't know Mark Fink", right to my face. Not, "I know the name", not "I've heard of him", but "I don't know Mark Fink."
  
  Starting out new relationships with lies (and make no mistake, no matter how it pleases you to spin this to yourself, that was an uncontestable lie) is never a good practice, Roy. It taints everything that comes after.

• Roy Schestowitz

  2009-06-18 22:31:27

  Do you know Steve Jobs?
  
  Do you know Steve Ballmer?
  
  Yes?
  
  Then you must be in cahoots with both.
  
  Quit playing games with semantics. I never lied to you. You twist words and were previously caught misquoting me too.

• David "Lefty" Schlesinger

  2009-06-18 22:38:58

  I do, in fact know Steve Jobs. (As it happens, I'm on a very short list of folks from Apple who have a) argued with Steve, b) not lost, precisely, and c) gotten to keep their badge in spite of it.) I certainly know of Steve Ballmer, but I've never actually met the man.
  
  (Just so you know, that's what an honest response would have looked like. "I've never met Mark Fink, but I know he's caused trouble for this site before" or "I've exchanged a couple of comments with him, but never met him", not "I don't know Mark Fink". That seems like an incredibly calculated response to me now. Shameful, really.)

• David "Lefty" Schlesinger

  2009-06-18 20:21:05

  Heh. No, I'm not "keen to defend this", but seeing your rather "free-from" approach to the facts, Roy, I'm looking for you to actually provide some substantiation for your claims. For your part, you seem very "keen" to avoid actually answering my question.
  
  "Conlin in Congress" (actually plaintiff's defense in Comes v. Microsoft) can call it a purple cow or a carne asada burrito if she likes, but in the absence of violation of a particular statute, her statements means nothing in particular.
  
  I'm just wondering where the statute that says, "You can't demonstrate flaws in your competitor's products" is, but only because I've never, ever heard of any such law.
  
  Are you actually claiming that Microsoft was charged with "technical sabotage" with regard to OS/2 as a result of this program you describe in the main article's having been developed and demonstrated?

• Roy Schestowitz

  2009-06-18 20:34:27

  This was not "demonstrate flaws in your competitor’s products.” It was manufacturing them. Read the memos.

• David "Lefty" Schlesinger

  2009-06-18 20:42:32

  That makes no sense, Roy. How does an application program "manufacture" a flaw in the target operating system? It can exploit a flaw, but I don't believe it can create one which wasn't there in the first place. (Is that what you're claiming...? Really? Let me be the first to warn you, I've got some thirty years of experience in software development, more than half of it shipping mass commercial platforms. If you're not a "technical guy"--and you're not, Roy, that's clear--be very, very sure of what you say here...)
  
  Rather than me taking time to plow through "the memos" to validate your claims, you (again) must have something specific in mind. Quote it and reference it, please.

• Roy Schestowitz

  2009-06-18 20:46:07

  They designed a program specifically to crash the O/S, and not in order to demonstrate that it's prone to crashes. Remember that Microsoft was an IBM partner at this stage and it knew very well that it was faking demos. Stay tuned for more memos on this subject.

• David "Lefty" Schlesinger

  2009-06-18 20:55:04

  But, Roy, that's not "manufacturing flaws", not even close. If the system could be crashed that way, then it's not a "faked demo", it's a real crash. It may not have been an admirable thing to do--and I'm sure IBM felt ill-used by their "partner"--but it doesn't come within a parsec of "criminal behavior", as you've claimed.
  
  You've provided no (none, nil, zero, zip, zilch) support for your claim. You've provided no answer to the specific question, in spite of its having been asked over half a dozen times in half a dozen different ways.
  
  You need to be careful, Roy. In case you were wondering, the legal terminology for what you appear to be doing here is "a flagrant disregard for the truth".

• Roy Schestowitz

  2009-06-18 20:58:48

  Here, like with AARD code, there is clear sabotage and FUD tactics that had Microsoft found guilty before. FUD tactics can be a crime too. See the Caldera case for details (Microsoft paid a lot of money to get rid of the boxes with evidence, but we found some).

• David "Lefty" Schlesinger

  2009-06-18 21:07:02

  Roy, this is getting silly. Spitting can be a crime, and so can eating ice cream. Depends on where and when you do it.
  
  What crime is Microsoft guilty of here? Be specific, don't appeal to statements by lawyers, or stories in the Times. Name the crime and identify the statute.
  
  Last chance. If you can't do this, then you're simply blowing smoke here. You're for sure not helping convince anyone your claims are credible.

• Roy Schestowitz

  2009-06-18 21:08:57

  I've already stated my case.

• David "Lefty" Schlesinger

  2009-06-18 21:35:46

  You "stated" about seven other cases, but actually produced nothing whatsoever with the slightest amount of relevance to your claims here.
  
  You really would be wise to retract that "criminal behavior" comment. That seems quite possibly actionable to me.

• Roy Schestowitz

  2009-06-18 21:41:22

  There were legal actions and settlements. Feel free to read about it.
  
  Here. First hit: . http://www.faqs.org/abstracts/Business-general/Microsoft-hampered-OS-2-IBM-official-tells-court-curbs-on-software-develvopers-are-faulted.html
  
  "John Soyring, an International Business Machines executive, testified today in the Department of Justice's anti-trust suit against Microsoft Corp. Soyring asserted that IBM's operating system, OS/2, failed to become popular among software developers largely because Microsoft refused to allow its development tools to be used to build applications for other operating systems. Microsoft made counter claims, asserting that OS/2's failure could be traced to design decisions made by IBM and not to any strategic decisions made by Microsoft."
  
  Had Microsoft committed no crimes (read: done something illegal), it would not pay.

• David "Lefty" Schlesinger

  2009-06-18 21:51:31

  Roy, I'm becoming increasingly reminded of an exchange from Larry Cohen's movie The Stuff, in which one character tells a character played by Michael Moriarty, "You're not as dumb as you look." Moriarty replies, "Nobody is as dumb as I look."
  
  This is totally irrelevant to your claim, Roy, and you must realize it. What's the relationship between this program you're calling "criminal behavior" here and a claim that "Microsoft refused to allow its development tools to be used to build applications for other operating systems"? I don't see any at all.
  
  And you're surely not dumb enough to believe (or expect me to believe) that the fact that Microsoft got fined for something is, by itself, evidence that ywhat you're claiming is a "crime" here is, in fact, anything of the sort.
  
  If this is the best you can do, I think I've demonstrated that you're simply using the phrase "criminal behavior" out of a desire for sensationalism and in flagrant disregard for the actual truth. I've really got better uses for my time than to "debate" someone who's refusing to act in good faith here.

• Roy Schestowitz

  2009-06-18 21:54:53

  I wrote "Here. First hit."
  
  If you want details about OS/2-related legal action, then go for it. It's old news, but it still stands.

• David "Lefty" Schlesinger

  2009-06-18 22:05:38

  I'm increasingly at a loss as to how to get past these cognitive difficulties you seem to be manifesting.
  
  ROY, THE ARTICLE UNDER THAT LINK HAS NOTHING, NADA, ZIP, ZERO, ZILCH, TO DO WITH WHAT YOU'VE CLAIMED.
  
  IT DOESN'T ADDRESS, REFER TO, OR SUPPORT YOUR CLAIM.
  
  YOUR CLAIM HAS NO BASIS IN FACT.
  
  THIS PURPORTED "CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR" IS SIMPLY SOMETHING YOU MADE UP, AND FOR WHICH YOU CAN PRODUCE NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER.
  
  Does that help...?

• Roy Schestowitz

  2009-06-18 22:12:36

  Let me repeat:
  
  

  To re-iterate what we have here, Microsoft used a “bad app” to take on the road to crash on OS/2. This sets a good background for other stories of Microsoft's attack on OS/2 — a subject which we carry on documenting.

  
  
  This, along with the context, is evidence of crime.
  
  Happy?

• Jose_X

  2009-06-18 22:16:35

  David, you know Roy is not a lawyer but is trying to present evidence as he interprets it. You could try helping instead of simply demonstrating that Roy likely does not have a legal future in the near horizon.
  
  If you help, you can also point out that certain things may be true but not follow from each other exactly as you are asking them. I have time to read here and think about it some, but perhaps Roy is busier than I am right now.
  
  Not being completely precise unintentionally or where there is context to what he might mean might be sloppy (like all those internal emails that have been posted from execs that are full of typos) but I doubt it is illegal.
  
  Roy is trying to show "criminal" actions that has been proven in court already, not actually prove it here on this blog (though that would be interesting). In particular, he is not a lawyer (neither am I or most of the audience) so it helps everyone if you slow down and mention more precisely what you mean, eg, by "criminal" etc.
  
  Have you considered that perhaps not everyone is understanding (or reading carefully, etc) what you are asking or that you are asking multiple questions in a very short a time span? Readers are not being paid like trial lawyers to catch everything and respond just as quickly (do trial lawyers respond quickly or do they confer with other professionals and take their time)?

• Roy Schestowitz

  2009-06-18 22:20:56

  If you want to see some particular crimes against OS/2, a favourite set of examples would include the Barkto incident, which is violation of EU law (i.e. crime)

• David "Lefty" Schlesinger

  2009-06-18 22:30:47

  Jose, given that Roy is "not a lawyer" (and I think any concerns about his having a future in the legal profession have been laid to rest) he should be exceedinly careful about whom he accuses of things like "criminal behavior", "accepting bribes", "censorship", etc.
  
  The best help I can give him is to suggest that he "stop making defamatory accusations for which you have no support". I've given him that advice, several times.
  
  If you're suggesting that I should somehow support Roy in these various witch-hunts he's undertaking, no thanks. If Roy can't be trusted to be truthful--and I've found that he can't, in my experience--then he's untrustworthy in my book, and I don't work with people I can't trust.

• Jose_X

  2009-06-18 22:48:08

  Roy, I don't know if you are going to be able to show criminal behavior on this blog except by quoting an authority.
  
  The examples given might be called unethical, but if you can't really point out the laws or someone saying those specific actions were criminal behavior of this or that type, then you should make that clear in your statements somewhere (eg, that you think they might be (or be unethical) but don't know).
  
  >> Jose, given that Roy is “not a lawyer” (and I think any concerns about his having a future in the legal profession have been laid to rest) he should be exceedinly careful about whom he accuses of things like “criminal behavior”, “accepting bribes”, “censorship”, etc.
  
  >> If Roy can’t be trusted to be truthful
  
  Roy, David is saying (in part) that you lied when you said you have never had a conversation (or something like that) with "Mark Fink". He points to the fact that someone with that name posted on these forums a few times in the past and you responded. [There are some other details as well.]
  
  Could you clarify once again what your relationship is to this alleged Mark Fink as best as you can remember?
  
  David, can we try to clear up some of these "lying" accusations against Roy? I suspect at least a few of these have to do with misunderstandings. Can we take it slowly? [ie, if this were a trial, let's try to avoid "badgering the witness".]

• Roy Schestowitz

  2009-06-18 22:50:56

  David, can we try to clear up some of these “lying” accusations against Roy?

  
  
  There was no lie. He's just determined to smear this site. And as you can see, he and others game the rating system too.

• Jose_X

  2009-06-18 23:03:34

  >> There was no lie. He’s just determined to smear this site.
  
  You said at the top:
  
  >> Notice who is being told that the “bad app” was being built? Paul Maritz, the current CEO of VMware. What is shown above is criminal bevaviour, but none of those involved is behind bars.
  
  Note, the use of the phrase "criminal behaviour".
  
  OK, I think David wants details. He wants to know specifically what action you think is criminal behavior, and he would like for you to back that up perhaps by pointing to statutes that were violated.
  
  If you can't do that or something similar, then he suggests that you might be yourself committing illegal actions against those being accused. He says that if you really believe you are in the right, then you should probably be prepared to face off in court if someone decides to sue.
  
  I'm not saying that you would lose a court action based on this blog, but if the case is that you are exaggerating, for example, than David wanted to point that out as clearly as he could.. that in fact when Roy says "criminal behavior" he doesn't really mean "criminal behavior".
  
  Roy, I'm not saying your interpretation of that statement "criminal behavior" (or "criminal behaviour" ;-) ) is the same as his. But..
  
  Can we get pass this impasse?

• Roy Schestowitz

  2009-06-18 23:08:04

  "What is shown above" refers to the whole story, not the Maritz involvement (note that I wrote "none of those involved"). As for Maritz, there's lots more about his actions coming. This is just the tip of the Comes iceberg and I look forward to posting more.

• Jose_X

  2009-06-19 00:48:01

  >> If this is the best you can do, I think I’ve demonstrated that you’re simply using the phrase “criminal behavior” out of a desire for sensationalism and in flagrant disregard for the actual truth. I’ve really got better uses for my time than to “debate” someone who’s refusing to act in good faith here.
  
  The posting that brought me back to this thread was this: http://boycottnovell.com/2009/06/18/microsoft-on-fud-tactics/
  
  On it, Roy wrote: >> YESTERDAY we wrote about saboteurs and FUD against OS/2, showing that Microsoft may have even broken the law in order to advance its agenda.
  
  and quoted Brad Silverberg: >> This is a very important point. We need to create the reputation for problems and incompatibilies to undermine confidence in drdos6; so people will make judgements against it without knowing details or fats. it’s will be tricky to do;
  
  The first point (a minor point) is that Roy recognized that the specific actions of this current thread (that is what he refers to above) might not be illegal ["may have even broken the law"].
  
  I don't know if the "saboteurs" bit is correct, but the "FUD" part likely is.
  
  The second point is that Brad's comments may help establish a pattern of disingenuousness and misrepresentation on the part of Microsoft. Many of the quotes I have seen on this site and elsewhere also work the same way.
  
  The result is that it's not necessary to show Microsoft acted illegally in some particular instance or other (courts are for that) in order to present a possibly convincing case that Microsoft may not make a very good partner to engage in business.

• David "Lefty" Schlesinger

  2009-06-19 01:02:13

  That result isn't relevant, since no one--least of all I--has been arguing that Microsoft makes an excellent, or even an average, partner to engage in business.
  
  My point, in case we've lost track of it somehow, is different: my point is that Roy's statement
  
  

  Notice who is being told that the “bad app” was being built? Paul Maritz, the current CEO of VMware. What is shown above is criminal bevaviour, but none of those involved is behind bars.

  
  
  which certainly implies that Pauk Maritz and others have a) engaged in "criminal behavior" and b) have not been punished for it, is completely incorrect--since Roy can identify no statute under which such an act is a crime--and, since Roy knows that he can't find such a statute, or he'd have produced it long ago, is also in flagrant disregard of the facts of the matter.
  
  Plain and simple: Roy knows his statement is contrary to fact, yet he persists in publishing it. Which, oddly enough, is exactly the same behavior I see on the Jimmi Hugh article. And the two separate articles on two separate technology writers whom Roy accuses of having been bribed by Microsoft. That's not the behavior of a journalist. It's not even the behavior of a good public relations person.
  
  These things seem like simple facts to me; they're easily verified on this site. Do you dispute them? What sort of person behaves this way, Jose?

• David "Lefty" Schlesinger

  2009-06-18 22:59:20

  Hm. Well, that sounds like a "No, I won't, either!" to me, Jose. How's it sound to you?
  
  (Did you stamp your foot, Roy? It doesn't count if you don't stamp your foot.)

• David "Lefty" Schlesinger

  2009-06-18 22:57:11

  That's entirely up to Roy, Jose, not to me. He's been providing "explanations" incorporating, in my view, progressively higher levels of weaselry as this has progressed. He claims there's more correspondence involved than the single message I saw, but he hasn't provided any, as you well know, in spite of your requesting that he provide it.
  
  Frankly, I've made up my mind about Roy. It's not just the issue with Mark Fink: it's his claims that journalists were "bribed" by Microsoft with cheap laptops, in spite of those journalists getting on here and providing express denials that this was the case. Roy's stories are unaltered: this shows, in my eyes, a flagrant disregard for the truth.
  
  It's the story which (wrongly) identifies Jimmi Hugh as the cause of "censorship" of a Wikipedia article, going on to characterize Mr. Hugh in a variety of negative ways. Roy knows it to be incorrect, yet his "correction" is a complete joke--the incorrect information as well as the defamation continue to stand: again, I see a flagrant disregard for the truth.
  
  Roy's claims of "criminal behavior" certainly seem to be more of the same.
  
  If you can explain to me what I'm "misunderstanding" about the claims that the two journalists were bribed and that Jimmi Hugh "censored" a Wikipedia article, I'd certainly be interested in hearing about it. As things stand, I don't see any reason to retract my statement that Roy has no real respect for the truth here.

• Jose_X

  2009-06-18 23:18:44

  >> If you can explain to me what I’m “misunderstanding” about the claims that the two journalists were bribed and that Jimmi Hugh “censored” a Wikipedia article, I’d certainly be interested in hearing about it. As things stand, I don’t see any reason to retract my statement that Roy has no real respect for the truth here.
  
  Roy, these criticisms are about you not sufficiently editing/updating/removing the articles where you have apparently made a mistake in your accusations against people (in these cases mentioned above).
  
  What is your views on this? I don't think you are planning on suing people that have allegedly lied about you on other forums; however, others might not be as kind to you, or, more importantly perhaps, is it right to leave some of these claims on boycottnovell when there is lots of evidence that the claims might not be supported or be outright incorrect?
  
  I am aware of the Jimmi Hughs situation. The evidence presented in the comments pretty much shows (barring some problems with wikipedia's history feature) that "Jimmi Hughs" was not the culprit. There was a grasshopper or something dude involved and even excuses as to why certain edits were made.
  
  Now, regardless of what your gut tells you (eg, that grasshopper and Jimmi were sync'd up), the evidence IMO did not support your story. You crossed out some lines in the story, true, but some people are upset because the story still shows up on Google. [Remember, guts can be wrong. Just keep that in mind.]
  
  Can we reach an agreement here somehow?
  
  As to the allegations over journalists and gifts, I will guess, from experience, that you may have been loose. If people point this out (with links and details), I think it would help to resolve the fixes on those things as quickly as possible.
  
  Whether this is a "blog" or whatever, the more careful and attentive you are, the more credibility you will have in general and the less people will bother you.

• Jose_X

  2009-06-19 00:17:52

  In fairness to this site (and because I have seen "criticisms" abused), people may want to try and point out the problems they see by referencing with a link and quotes if possible. Otherwise, perhaps the particular incident has already been resolved (eg, clarified somewhere) or there could be confusion as to which is the specific incident in question.
  
  Also, it would help "resolve" the Jimmi issue if Jimmi would come and ask. After Jimmi posted a few things, the strike through took place. Jimmi might be satisfied with this existing scenario (strike through) for all we can tell. [I haven't read over that thread in a long time so I may not remember the details well or be caught up to the latest.]

• David "Lefty" Schlesinger

  2009-06-19 00:48:51

  It would help resolve the "Jimmi issue" if Roy simply started behaving like the "journalist" he claims to be and made a full retraction of the accusations, which he knows to be unsupported and incorrect, and edit the article to remove not only the accusation themselves but also the defamatory characterizations of Mr. Hugh which he gratuitously includes there.
  
  Apologizing for defaming Mr. Hugh and for taking so long to do the right thing might be a nice touch, but I suspect that Roy won't even do the above, which seems the minimally appropriate response.
  
  If Roy wants to talk the "journalist" talk, he ought to walk the "journalist" walk.

• Jose_X

  2009-06-19 01:06:48

  For reference, this is the link: http://boycottnovell.com/2008/12/29/jimmi-hugh-wikipedia-censorship-on-ms/
  
  Jimmi Hugh appears in two places. in the title: "Microsoft and Jimmi Hugh: Wikipedia Censorship or Just Vandalism? (Corrected)"
  
  and in this section: >> There are two people responsible for this censorship and the details appear in the comments.
  
  >> The person responsible for this censorship is a man by the name of Jimmi Hugh, whom I believe has a particularly infamous reputation on Wikipedia. One source describes him as “a shameless character with some kind of pro-Microsoft agenda.”
  
  His name is crossed out in the title. And the second of the two paragraphs is entirely crossed out as well.

• David "Lefty" Schlesinger

  2009-06-19 01:22:21

  And, as I've said, that makes absolutely no difference to a search engine. Strikethrough is simply an adornment, and is not at all a substitute for actually correcting information which is known (and acknowledged, even if only in a completely passive-aggressive sort of fashion) to be wrong.
  
  Do a Google search on "Jimmi Hugh". Among the first page results--in fact, the second result when I just did this--is a republication of Roy's incorrect story. Since he never actually retracted it, you won't find that via a search.
  
  What I said: flagrant disregard.

• Jose_X

  2009-06-19 01:27:21

  I'll quote (extensively) from a website http://sites.google.com/site/gordymichaels/thoughts-on-advocacy/hit-jobs-gone-wrong that documented what appears to have happened: ***** Let's go through the correct sequence of events:
  
  * On Oct 9, user FreeRangeFrog removes the paragraph in the Criticisms section that references the Bill Gates email. He then posts this message on the talk page explaining what and why he did. There is no subsequent challenge by other editors to this change. * Between Oct 25 and Oct 28, Jimmi Hugh makes 12 edits, including removing what is left of the criticisms section and working the "salvageable points" into the rest of the article. This is in line with Wikipedia policy. Remember, by this time the Gates reference did not even exist in the article, as it was removed previously by FreeRangeFrog. Hugh then makes additional edits to the article. The sequence can be seen better by looking at the whole revision page. * On December 16, an anonymous user (identified on Wikipedia only by an IP address) restores the entire Criticisms section claiming "censorship", placing the Bill Gates claim back but also in effect duplicating information that had already been worked into the article by Jimmi Hugh. * The next edit is made by user Slatedorg, which does not even have a Wikipedia user page. He helpfully "corrects" the Bill Gates reference. I assume Slatedorg is this person, who is a well-known collaborator of BycottNovell. It's important to remember that the paragraph in contention here pointed to his blog. Surprise! * On December 17, FreeRangeFrog reverts the Bill Gates reference only, leaving the rest of the (now duplicate) Criticisms section, mentioning his post on the talk page. This is wrong in that the correct action he should have taken is to revert the entire change by the anonymous user. * That same day, Jimmi Hugh reverts (again, and correctly) the entire Criticisms section.
  
  So, it's clear that:
  
  * Schestowitz and his friend do not care about the criticisms section per se, especially the technical ones. They're just worried about the removal of the Bill Gates reference. * FreeRangeFrog removed said reference, not Jimmi Hugh. Jimmi Hugh removed what was left of that section by working it into the rest of the article, as per WP policy. * FreeRangeFrog went about removing the reference as per WP policy as well, posting a message on the Talk page and inviting people to comment on his action. ...
  
  This is clearly a smear job, and if anything, it should have been directed at the FreeRangeFrog user, assuming it was done in bad faith, which doesn't look to be the case. *****
  
  I disagree with some of the comments there such as that this was a smear job done with full knowledge of what happened. You have to look at things carefully (go through numerous revisions) to sort out what happened if you didn't know.
  
  [I used the term "grasshopper" earlier. The intended name was "FreeRangeFrog"]

• David "Lefty" Schlesinger

  2009-06-19 01:34:49

  Sorry, Jose, but you're simply wrong. Roy's wrong. Gordy's right. There's no question that the update history was misread, misinterpreted and misreported on this site, by Roy, as is clear both from the commentary and from a look at the history itself.
  
  If you or Roy feel that Gordy's analysis is incorrect, then it's incumbent on you to produce the evidence to support that claim. Which of the "numerous revisions" are you talking about, and what do you find when you "go through them". Please be specific: I've checked Gordy's timeline here, and it's right in line with what I see in the history.

• Jose_X

  2009-06-19 01:41:12

  >> You have to look at things carefully (go through numerous revisions) to sort out what happened if you didn’t know.
  
  Want to clarify this. Jimmi did remove a link to the Gates memo. And in aggregate with FreeRangeFrog, these two did remove what the article was saying was censored.
  
  If you go through to sort out all the details of the history AND are aware of the wikipedia technical rules and guidelines, then you might realize that Jimmi didn't do anything wrong that can be shown. What can be shown is that he participated in removing a reference to the Bill Gates memo. He probably knew enough of the history of that article to have fixed things so that the link to the Gates memo would have remained. He did not do that. It's certainly at least debateable whether that link belongs in there.
  
  Anyway, I wanted to explain this a little bit because if you don't look at the wikipedia rules and follow the steps carefully (and I only followed them partially, but I think enough), you can certainly think that Jimmi is working purposely to keep out of the ACPI article a memo that makes Bill Gates look ugly in order to protect Bill Gates. [I certainly think that link is relevant but it would have to be worded properly.]
  
  Remember that Jimmi chose to drop that subject (he could have instead tried to keep it in there or just not made any edits) and to err on the side of keeping an important criticism out of the article while invoking as a justification for this a wikipedia best practice that says that criticism sections should be avoided.
  
  Wikipedia does not say that criticism sections should not exist. In particular, when you incorporate the contents of that section into the article, you should not drop anything important.

• Jose_X

  2009-06-19 01:44:51

  >> Sorry, Jose, but you’re simply wrong. ...
  
  You will have to be specific. You confuse me because what I disagreed with was that an intentional smear was definitely committed.
  
  Yet, you then ask that I show how Gordy's timeline was incorrect. Well, I never said I disagreed with the timeline.
  
  So what did I say that you think is incorrect? and why?

• David "Lefty" Schlesinger

  2009-06-19 01:55:09

  You're incorrect in your reading of the facts, first of all.
  
  Secondly, you're incorrect in saying that an "intentional smear" was not committed, at least in my view. The smear remains, fully indexed and searchable, many, many months subsequent to Roy's having it pointed out to him that he was wrong. That strongly suggests to me that the attempt to damage Mr. Hugh's reputation is intentional. If Roy were sincere in his desire to correct the entry, why does the identification of Mr. Hugh as the "censor" (as well as the various character assassinations) remain in place? Why no admission of error, or retraction from Roy? That shows bad faith to me.

• Jose_X

  2009-06-19 01:58:00

  If it's not clear from what I wrote, I am suspect of Jimmi, but I agree that the article did not clearly demonstrate that Jimmi was guilty of anything.
  
  This is why I said that if Jimmi has a problem with this, I think he would have returned or would have been fetched again. His comments from before were bitter and a bit sarcastic. He apparently believes this site is a joke site and no one takes what is said here seriously. If Jimmi doesn't care, why do so many other people care?
  
  He made sweeping statements of this site and assumed the worst without any desire to be polite and assume an innocent mistake was made. Believe it or not, sometimes that is the approach people take when they want to avoid lying or answering difficult questions.
  
  I also would not be surprised if Jimmi is aware of this conversation taking place right now.
  
  Anyway, I don't know who Jimmi is and I think the blog piece should make it clear that Jimmi could easily have been an innocent bystander, if perhaps one willing to make what I will call a "judgment call" in favor of Bill Gates.

• Jose_X

  2009-06-19 02:04:03

  >> You’re incorrect in your reading of the facts, first of all.
  
  Quite possibly, but I can't imagine it is so hard to quote what so that I can see it for myself and learn.
  
  >> Secondly, you’re incorrect in saying that an “intentional smear” was not committed
  
  At the time Gordy made those comments, his analysis had not been made known. I personally was able to leverage his analysis to figure out what happened. No I was not going to go through all past edits of the ACPI article in order to participate in the discussion.
  
  So, why did Gordy write up that clear analysis if it is so obvious what is going on? And, of course, if things weren't that obvious, as I already tried to explain, then it almost goes without saying that it is not clear at all that Roy or anyone had been participating (upto that point in time) in an intentional smear.
  
  In fact, I don't even know when Roy was convinced of what happened; however, some time after Gordy's analysis, the strike throughs were carried out.

• David "Lefty" Schlesinger

  2009-06-19 02:11:25

  Hm.
  
  Jose, perhaps social customs differ remarkably in your specific locale than in any place I've ever been in my life (and I've been to quite a few), but in the places I have frequented in my travels, when someone begins their conversation with you by saying that you are "a shameless character" with "a particularly infamous reputation", both politeness and the presumption of an innocent mistake have pretty much gone out the window.
  
  Believe it or not, sometimes that is the approach people take when they want to avoid lying or answering difficult questions.
  
  Believe it or not, sometimes that is the approach people take when they've been publicly defamed.

• David "Lefty" Schlesinger

  2009-06-19 02:15:25

  So, why did Gordy write up that clear analysis if it is so obvious what is going on?
  
  Um, because Roy was being inaccurate, shall we say, about what was going on and refused to correct those inaccuracies...? Just guessing.
  
  As I've pointed out, the article is still inaccurate, for all intents and purposes.

• Jose_X

  2009-06-19 02:23:13

  Both what you stated and what I stated with respect to Jimmi's comments on this site are each real possibilities. In any case, I was not accusing him of anything (he might not have heard of boycottnovell prior to his showing nor have thought about it afterwards). It's alright to have doubts (I explained already why I have them). I don't know who that person is and don't intend to take it further than this conversation here (or very similar conversations that may arise).
  
  Attention all -- I don't think it would be a good idea or very morally correct to attack that person or their privacy on account of mere suspicions. These are tiny battles anyway. Tiny. Teeny weeny.

• David "Lefty" Schlesinger

  2009-06-19 02:30:42

  They're only "tiny" and "teeny weeny" when you're not the one whose reputation is being wrongly attacked. I'd never looked at this site prior to last week, when one of its denizens decided it'd be a neat idea to try to get me in trouble with my managers--to no avail.
  
  Deciding that people's lives are "tiny", "teeny weeny", in the face of the all-important quest to stop Microsoft and Novell from destroying Free Software is what makes this site contrary to actual community.

• Jose_X

  2009-06-19 02:36:44

  >> > So, why did Gordy write up that clear analysis if it is so obvious what is going on?
  
  >> Um, because Roy was being inaccurate, shall we say, about what was going on and refused to correct those inaccuracies…? Just guessing.
  
  This is getting silly.
  
  Look, Gordy went the extra mile IMO so that it would be clear that Roy's article had inaccuracies. He went the extra mile, presumably because to simply repeat what he had said before on the thread or to link to the thread would not have been as convincing. I agree the thread was messy. I think, as I explained a little earlier, that it was not clear Jimmi was "just" following wikipedia best practices if you don't know what those best practices are. Without knowing wikipedia policy, what Roy's blog posting said is correct in the sense that Jimmi did in fact participate along with someone else in removing the references to the Gates memo. Further, I think (I'd have to check again) Jimmi did remove the actual reference himself in one case but did so with a justification that was possible because of the changes FreeRangeFrog made and by invoking the wikipedia policy.
  
  I may be off some. Please correct if you know the correction and what is wrong. I am not double-checking everything I state but I did provide the links so that others can correct where my memory fails.

• Jose_X

  2009-06-19 02:46:17

  You can calm down with the teeny weeny bit since I did not say that a person's life is teeny weeny in value.
  
  What I implied (it was not clear perhaps) was that a battle to catch Microsoft red handed in any particular case is generally teeny weeny. That is a major battle waged by boycottnovell: to call out Microsoft wrong-doing. The Jimmi article was presumably an example of Microsoft being caught red handed.
  
  I already stated that I don't think it was shown that Jimmi was guilty of anything serious.
  
  I also state that the Jimmi blog piece had/has many correct statements and that Jimmi exercised judgment that happens to have fallen in Bill Gates' favor.

• David "Lefty" Schlesinger

  2009-06-19 02:54:49

  This is getting silly.
  
  Well, we can find a basis for agreement after all!
  
  You're right.
  
  I'm off the day after tomorrow to the Netherlands (for meetings relating to the use of open source on cell phones) and then to Gran Canaria (for the joint GUADECAkademy "Global Desktop Summit"). There's packing to do and horror movies to watch while I'm doing it. We're clearly not going to agree on much else, and I sense that pursuing this further is a less worthwhile use of my time...

• Jose_X

  2009-06-19 02:59:57

  Enjoy your trip. I too thought I could help. I'm not sure this is either your fight or my fight. I'd very rather get on to other things as well.

• David "Lefty" Schlesinger

  2009-06-19 01:51:36

  Jimmi didn't remove the Bill Gates quote, FreeRangeFrog did. He explained his reasoning in the "Talk" page, just as he should have. If that's the issue, you folks have clearly blamed the wrong person.
  
  If you think it's justified to continue to defame Jimmi on the basis that "if you don’t look at the wikipedia rules and follow the steps carefully (and I only followed them partially, but I think enough), you can certainly think that Jimmi is working purposely..." then that's nonsense. On WIkipedia, you go by the Wikipedia rules. Are you suggesting that something you might think, and you don't sound anywhere close to "reasonable certainty", is true is a basis for defaming someone...? That's a heck of a limb you're going out onto there.
  
  But feel free to justify Roy's continuing disregard for the truth on this flimsy basis, if you like, Jose. I suppose there are cogent reasons for continuing to accuse to tech writers of accepting bribes from Microsoft, too...? (And lest we forget, Mr. Maritz et al. and their putative "criminal behavior"...?)

• Sabayon User

  2009-06-20 18:37:46

  I would be curious to know what is your position on Microsoft, eg, on issues such as ethics, unfair or illegal actions towards competitors, the degree to which they are threatened by gentoo or sabayon should these gain marketshare, etc.

  
  
  Jose_X,
  
  I will be more than happy to answer your questions here. No problem. In fact, I don't have a blog, but I can sign up for one on Blogger and post my positions, thoughts and feelings on all these issues.
  
  I will do that immediately after Roy satisfactorily answers all the questions posed here, including yours re: Jimmi Hugh. I commend you for asking them, and I hope that wasn't resolved privately with instructions for you to drop it or something like that.
  
  Fair? Let me know.