Comments

• JohnD

  2009-03-25 19:18:42

  Unless they are casting more than one vote - I don't the system as flawed. I haven't voted on any stories so I don't know how it works. One way to try to verify the validity of the data is to gather metrics on daily average page hits. If people are trying to pan certain stories you should see spikes in traffic that don't mesh with your established baselines. You can also try tracking votes+ip addresses this would let you know if one person is hammering the voting system. There's also the possibility that the system is working correctly and the data is what it is. You could also discount 1 and 10 votes and go for the stuff in between. It's also possible that your supporters are trying to run the score up in their favor too.

• Roy Schestowitz

  2009-03-25 19:38:17

  The point I was trying to get across is that stories are not judged on their merits. People who hate the site vote based on their emotion (faith over logic), i.e. 1/10. Many people visit this site with resentment and have been trying to ruin it since it was started. Now they have another tool for spoiling it.
  
  By the way, Novell employees visit the site and sometimes comment anonymously (even from their employer's domain).

• Paul Gaskin

  2009-03-25 20:51:46

  I see it as a tool for their tactics of suppressing dissent to be revealed. That is to your advantage, but only because you're ready to call them out like you did here.

• Paul Gaskin

  2009-03-25 20:54:06

  It could be more informative if users had accounts so that you could see which user account created each vote. That would reveal individuals who vote negatively consistently, regardless of what is published. Also up-or-down voting beats 5-star voting for simplicity.

• JohnD

  2009-03-26 01:08:33

  Thanks for the clarification, but I have to chuckle at your response: "Many people visit this site with resentment and have been trying to ruin it since it was started. Now they have another tool for spoiling it." Didn't you supply the tool? You gave them the ability to "voice" their opinion, it's kind of sour grapes to be disappointed that they used it to cast negative feedback. I agree that some will vote negative out of emotion rather than logic, but there are people who will vote 10 every time out of emotion as well - hence my suggestion to drop the extremes and focus on the votes in the middle. I also think that only allowing registered people to vote would probably skew number towards the positive. Realistically people who support this site are more likely to register then those who don't. Frankly I would expect Novell employees to pan this site, I'd be more shocked if the staff at large started voting in support! I think you need to more clearly define your goal with respect to voting before it can become a useful tool.

• Roy Schestowitz

  2009-03-26 01:26:33

  JohnD,
  
  I mostly agree with you.
  
  I suggest you see what PJ wrote about sabotage attempts in her community.. Slashdot still has an unhealthy, hostile element in its community for the most part, particularly when it comes to certain subjects. Marketing people are gaming it too (an administrator from there told me).

• JohnD

  2009-03-26 04:10:27

  If this is your site how can it be sabotaged? Regardless of what people vote or post, you can continue to post your opinions/views. I read slashdot, but seldom venture into the posts - the linked articles speak for themselves. The overall content appeals to me and I'm usually left to draw my own conclusions.

• JohnD

  2009-03-25 18:33:50

  So what is the chart showing? Is 10 the best or the worst? If so, it looks to me that over 60% are 8-10. How does that translate to a flaw?

• Roy Schestowitz

  2009-03-25 18:42:34

  This shows that one in 3 people voting (unregistered) just hit 1/10. It enables 'gang-voting'. On the other hand, many people just rate stuff 10/10 (and no, I can't vote).

• Paul Gaskin

  2009-03-25 20:48:56

  The new rating system is nifty. I find it funny that your cagey critics think that they can "manage perceptions" with their negative feedback, and not have their unsophisticated efforts revealed.
  
  The problem is that they're too lazy to engage you directly with rational arguments because then they would have to confront their own cognitive dissonance.

• aeshna23

  2009-03-25 20:58:00

  One outcome of this experience is that you could just decide that the data gathered by the voting system is just too noisy to be of any use. It's a much more common problem that many researchers would like to admit.
  
  Anyway, I usually assume that the articles that don't interest me here are of interest to some other segment of the population. And what interest me may not interest other people. For this reason, I'm not sure what I could learn from the voting even if it were just votes from supportive individuals.

• Robert

  2009-03-26 01:33:29

  what it boils down to is that this rating system, just like the one used at Digg, Slashdot, etc, is not immune from being abused by the Microsoft shills, trolls, & Munchkins. i would much rather prefer that Roy make this website "Konquerer friendly". also, i would like to see him have more authority to kick / ban the trolls who post here.

• Roy Schestowitz

  2009-03-26 01:39:18

  Robert,
  
  I use Konqueror in KDE 3.5.x and it works for me. Can you be specific please so that I can fix the problem?

• Robert

  2009-03-28 02:57:22

  Roy the problem is that the links to supporting articles that are in bold font are not clickable, they cannot be "highlighted" by holding the left button down on the mouse while moving the curser across the link. if there was a way that i could post a screenshot, i would do it.

• Dan O'Brian

  2009-03-28 12:24:15

  I agree, this is a major problem. It prevents people from easily being able to check the articles you are summarizing.

• Dan O'Brian

  2009-03-26 01:45:08

  You mean the voting systems that Roy's friend, "twitter", is known to game?
  
  http://slashdot.org/~SockDisclosure/journal/214377
  
  It's so funny how you guys like to accuse people (without proof) of doing the very same things you guys have been CAUGHT (red handed) doing.

• Roy Schestowitz

  2009-03-26 01:48:29

  "You guys" as in collectives? I am not "twitter", sorry.
  
  I guess that since you participate in "Boycott Novell", then "we" also include trolls.

• Paul Gaskin

  2009-03-26 01:55:23

  Roy, looks like the rating system is already leading to more interactions between people.

• Reality Jones

  2009-03-25 23:41:26

  Of course, it is possible that you're just getting honest feedback Roy.

• Paul Gaskin

  2009-03-25 23:48:43

  I give that comment a rating of 3 because it's often a good idea to check and double-check your critics' talking points.
  
  But where are the people disputing things in person? I say "cagey critics" referring to those who use character attacks from the cover of pseudonyms, or even more anonymously, just click the lowest rating on every story.
  
  Are you aware that corporations are creating incentives for "astro-turf" campaigns to quell criticism? Do you make your point within the context of acknowledging this fact, or are you just saying Roy is being a jerk for saying bad things about "Company X"?

• Dan O'Brian

  2009-03-26 01:28:34

  Roy spreads a lot of false information (Roy claims you can't write a GPLv3 application if you link with X11 libs? what?), attacking innocent individuals (thinking of a particular Wikipedia user for instance), and a plethora of other trollish behavior.
  
  It's really not surprising that he gets voted down.
  
  Face it, Roy put up the voting system to massage his own ego thinking everyone loved him and would vote his poorly researched articles a 10/10. It backfired. Get over it.

• Robert

  2009-03-26 01:36:13

  Idiot

• Robert

  2009-03-26 01:38:24

  dan obrian, your just a damn troll

• Dan O'Brian

  2009-03-26 01:40:17

  Such a convincing argument you have there, Robert.
  
  Too bad your friend Neighborlee isn't here to tell you how you've lost the argument because you used such language.

• Roy Schestowitz

  2009-03-26 01:40:32

  He lives near Novell, by his very own admission. He refuses to say who he works for, despite being asked many times (and not just by me).

• Dan O'Brian

  2009-03-26 01:48:48

  If by "near" you mean over an hour's drive away (2 if during rush hour), then yes.
  
  Who I work for isn't any of your business. Just like how much money I make or what my childrens or wife's names are.
  
  Even Shane Coyle (the guy who started this site) agreed that it's none of your business.

• Roy Schestowitz

  2009-03-26 01:50:27

  I thought you said you were half an hour away, but I could be mistaken.

• Paul Gaskin

  2009-03-26 01:52:50

  I'm modding Dan O'Brian up because at least he shows up here under his own name. That's not a bad start.
  
  Dan, nobody doesn't make mistakes, and I'm not Roy, so I'm not going to question your assertions regarding Roy.
  
  Do you acknowledge the fact that "astro-turf" campaigns are being employed by the corporations which are being criticized?
  
  Your answer will help add context to the discussion.

• Roy Schestowitz

  2009-03-26 01:58:20

  They usually nitpick rather than identify mistakes. There are many posts in which minor accidental errors can be found.
  
  Sometimes they use interpretation or POV to claim the other side is erroneous.

• Dan O'Brian

  2009-03-26 02:01:01

  Paul: I have seen no evidence that there's any anti-Roy astro-turfing campaigns being waged here.
  
  There are certainly some trolls on the COLA usenet forum, but I see no evidence that they are employed to troll there either.

• Roy Schestowitz

  2009-03-26 02:03:00

  There are Novell employees commenting here.

• Dan O'Brian

  2009-03-26 02:03:06

  Roy: if by nitpicking you mean discrediting the main point of your argument, then yes.

• Roy Schestowitz

  2009-03-26 02:04:34

  Strawmen.

• Paul Gaskin

  2009-03-26 02:07:58

  Dan, I wouldn't care to discuss the proximity of where you live to Novell because I'm not interested in proving you have a connection to Novell.
  
  It is fair to ask whether or not you do work for Novell, and the question has nothing to do with your family. You're free not to answer, but your refusal to disclose that you have a connection to Novell or Microsoft will have more significance if it is the case.
  
  Disclosure of personal interest is a conventional way of establishing credibility by not trying to hide your motives.
  
  I admit I'm hoping to take market-share away from Microsoft as a small-businessman. That's a disclosure.
  
  So, how about a more indirect question: are you not disclosing your connection or lack-thereof to Novell based on principle, or based in personal-interest?
  
  Yes, it's a trick question.

• Dan O'Brian

  2009-03-26 02:26:17

  Mind telling me who /you/ work for? I don't exactly see you volunteering that information. How do I know you don't work for a Novell competitor and that's why you're supporting boycottnovell?
  
  I see you say you want to see Microsoft lose market share, but what's your interest in seeing Novell fail? Do you work for a competitor to Novell?
  
  This works both ways, fellas.
  
  (and as Roy already knows, I have no affiliation with either Microsoft nor Novell).

• Paul Gaskin

  2009-03-26 02:31:46

  Dan, I'll add to my disclosure. I'm starting a small business. I focus on non-proprietary software, especially free software for ideological as well as entrepreneurial reasons.
  
  You can click the link on my name and see my business website. Soon I will incorporate in New York.
  
  I do not work for any competitor to Novell, but I would be quite happy to recommend Redhat instead of Novell because of the Microsoft/Novell patent covenant, which is exclusive and endangers my freedom as a programmer with the threat of software patents.
  
  I have donated to the Free Software Foundation, and I will do so again.
  
  Now it's your turn.

• Dan O'Brian

  2009-03-26 02:46:36

  I already answered, I don't work for Microsoft nor Novell (nor do I have any affiliation).
  
  I also work for a company writing Free Software (I'm not a developer however, I'm an engineering manager).
  
  I have also donated to the FSF (a few times, but not since circa 2002 or 2003 or so) as well as the EFF (every year since 2000 or 2001, I'd have to check my tax records to be sure).
  
  FWIW, the Microsoft-Novell deal doesn't endanger you with any threat of software patents any more than you were endangered before. You clearly have a misunderstanding of the covenant, which simply states that Microsoft will not sue any of Novell's customers and that Novell will not sue any of Microsoft's customers over software patents.

• Paul Gaskin

  2009-03-26 03:28:05

  Dan, thanks for that, but there should be more. If you're willing to go toe-to-toe, mano-y-mano, you shouldn't withhold your company's name.
  
  If your company didn't want you to work so diligently to discredit Roy, maybe they would have asked you to stop by now.
  
  Surely they're aware of your efforts, given that they're in the business of developing software under Free and Open Source licenses.
  
  Your company has become very relevant. If it's a big company which has a lot of Microsoft licenses, or contributes substantially to OpenSUSE, that's something which ought to have been disclosed earlier.
  
  If it's a small company, maybe you should not disclose, but instead, maybe you should apologize since you've gone so far against Roy, yet you choose to remain unknown.
  
  Also, if you choose not to disclose, it's probably a good time to stop battling instead of doing your job, because it could negatively affect your company's income if your company's name were somehow revealed.
  
  Kudos for donating to the EFF and the FSF. Out of curiosity, why did you stop donating to the FSF?
  
  I disagree about the Microsoft/Novell Patent Covenent. I don't even like the non-exclusive patent indemnification deals. I don't like the idea of software patents at all, and I consider it a misapplication of patent law.
  
  I'm hoping that you agree that it's not prudent to put your colleagues income at risk by potentially tarnishing your company's name. If that is the case, it's better this whole argument go than to continue from secrecy. But again, Roy deserves an apology if you're going to keep your company secret.

• Paul Gaskin

  2009-03-26 03:31:39

  Another possibility is private discussion. Maybe you can send Roy and email and thereby leave your company's reputation and Roy's reputation out of harm's way.

• Dan O'Brian

  2009-03-26 14:39:06

  If your company didn’t want you to work so diligently to discredit Roy, maybe they would have asked you to stop by now.

  
  
  Paul: The company I work for has no stake in my comments here. They do not sponsor me to write comments. It's pretty underhanded of you to suggest otherwise. AFAICT, since you are unable to rebut my arguments, you have resorted to attacking the messenger.
  
  I also fail to see why he deserves an apology if I keep my company secret, it's not any of his business. It doesn't change the validity of my arguments.
  
  I stopped donating to the FSF because I felt the EFF was a better use of my money (and I only have a finite supply).
  
  As far as patents, I agree in that I would like to see software patents abolished as well. They are a tool for abuse, they certainly don't protect those whom the patent system was originally meant to protect.
  
  The reason I don't publish my company's name here is precisely because I don't trust Roy not to attempt to tarnish its reputation unfairly. It wouldn't be the first time he's done such a thing.
  
  Roy has repeatedly falsely accused people and projects and companies of wrong-doing without any proof.
  
  I believe in innocent until proven guilty.
  
  Roy believes that he is innocent until proven guilty, but that everyone else is guilty until proven innocent. This seems to be the same believe you have - just look at the post of yours that I am replying to - you accuse me of wrong-doing w/o any proof. You assert that I am being paid to disagree with Roy. You are accusing my company of attacking Roy.
  
  Where's the proof?

• Paul Gaskin

  2009-03-26 18:33:11

  Dan, if you won't disclose your company's name (I have not advised you to do so), maybe you can disclose a bit of information about the software projects you're involved in, to lend context to the discussion.

• Robert

  2009-03-28 02:48:02

  [quote dan no brain scribled] Roy spreads a lot of false information (Roy claims you can’t write a GPLv3 application if you link with X11 libs? what?), attacking innocent individuals (thinking of a particular Wikipedia user for instance), and a plethora of other trollish behavior.[/quote]
  
  wheres the proof, dan?
  
  what you have shown in this forum so far is that you are a troll. in fact, i strongly suspect that you are actually Gary M Stuart (flatfish).

• Dan O'Brian

  2009-03-28 12:30:41

  Robert: it's a well known fact that Roy has been caught on numerous occasions publishing misinformation on this website.
  
  But, if you want proof of immorality, here you go:
  
  http://boycottnovell.com/2008/12/29/jimmi-hugh-wikipedia-censorship-on-ms/#comment-57480
  
  In that article, Roy viciously accused Jimmi Hughs of censorship and of being paid by Microsoft to do so.
  
  He had 0 evidence to support this. It also turns out he was provably WRONG.
  
  That article was pure libel.
  
  Even after Shane Coyle's comment that I linked above pressed Roy to apologize and correct his libelous statements, Roy refused to do so saying that he would publish another article later with his evidence. Such an article has never been published.
  
  It's almost been 3 months. Where's the proof?

• Dan O'Brian

  2009-03-28 13:02:52

  Here's another example Robert:
  
  http://boycottnovell.com/2008/10/09/shopping-for-mono-protection/
  
  In this particular example, Roy refers to an older libelous article:
  
  http://boycottnovell.com/2008/08/21/mono-guard-alternatealias/
  
  in which Roy asserts that the developer is:
  
  1. using anonymous accounts w/o any proof 2. pretending to not work for Novell a. The developer is widely known to work for Novell in the Linux developer community (and indeed searching his name shows up his email address on the first page of hits with an @novell.com email address) b. Roy claims he made this accusation because the developer does not mention his employer in big bold letters on his personal blog which is pretty amusing because neither does Roy. Nor do most people. c. being an anonymous "Mono booster". Since it's obvious that Roy had already looked at this developers blog with scrutiny to find his employer (hah!), how did he mis the guy's "Mono Contributor" logo on the side panel at the top? His name was also clearly stated on the blog.
  
  Crossing off text does not reverse the damage that Roy may have done to either of these fine folks (one of which has contributed to dozens of Free Software projects according to statistics sites like Ohloh.com).
  
  It really makes you wonder if Roy is really on the side of Free Software, or if this site is just to stroke his own ego and place himself in the limelight.
  
  The easiest and quickest way to fame w/ the the "group-think" FLOSS community is to bash Microsoft and anyone/thing that is remotely related. Bashing GNOME is another favorite - even before Mono. Generally, with this crowd, facts aren't important because they just want an outlet for their anger - they feed off of accusations against anyone they dislike regardless of validity.

• PaulGaskin

  2009-03-29 00:07:10

  Again, "Dan O'Brian" (I'm going to put your name in quotes for now), you're contesting Roy from secrecy.
  
  You present your name as "Dan O'Brian". Is that really your name? If not, don't keep up the charade, because if it is discovered who you are through some network forensics, or something which gives you away, it will be very embarrassing.
  
  So be careful here before you continue. If you're not planning to disclose your identity and your employer, it's a good idea to go away.
  
  BTW, you keep mentioning people who go online under their own names. Your problem is that you're trying to "go hard" against a public name while keeping your own anonymity. That's a more dangerous game than anyone else is playing.

• Dan O'Brian

  2009-03-29 00:41:16

  Paul: Seems to me you want me to go away because you don't like being having your evidence-lacking opinions proven to be factually false.

• JohnD

  2009-03-29 15:22:40

  Ok I want everyone to cough up their SSN numbers so I can verify each of your identities. There is no possible way anyone on here could have any valid points to make because I don't know who you "really" are. Until I have verified your identity I will assume your are a liar and simply exist to denounce my point of view.

• Roy Schestowitz

  2009-03-29 15:25:20

  John,
  
  Sarcasm aside, I don't know how I feel about letting Novell employees, for example, just comment here anonymously without it being flagged.

• PaulGaskin

  2009-03-30 00:29:53

  Regarding the guy who brought up SSNs and privacy, I would say that I agree, but there comes a point at which anonymity is not a reasonable proposition when in the course of a sustained attack on the credibility of a person who is not anonymous.
  
  I would argue that "Dan O'Brian" has crossed that threshold into the inappropriate and unreasonable by his persistence, his wide spread commentary on many different sites, and over a significant span of time.
  
  I might call that "cyber-haunting" someone with "negitude".

• Dan O'Brian

  2009-03-30 01:51:49

  Mind sharing these "wide spread" sites? I've commented on usenet maybe once or twice, because Roy pointed to a discussion on his usenet forum (on a number of occasions I might add). Same for the one or two other sites I've posted to pertaining to either Roy or BN.
  
  I'm sorry, but no one is going to buy your exaggerated lies, Paul.

• Dan O'Brian

  2009-03-30 02:08:37

  Btw, if you call what I do "cyber haunting", then what do you call what Roy does to Miguel de Icaza and other people?
  
  He's attacked them on far more times and on far more sites than I've even mentioned Roy or BN.
  
  You guys are hypocrites and you keep proving that you are more guilty of the things you accuse others of than the people you accuse.
  
  Time and time again.
  
  You get all upset when I mention "twitter" because you dislike it when "guilt by association" is used, yet it is the cornerstone of all of your arguments against me, Novell, Mono, etc.
  
  Mono is "guilty until proven innocent" due to it being associated with Novell (or "guilty until proven innocent" due to it being associated with Microsoft).
  
  I'm "guilty until proven innocent" because you accuse me of working for Novell (which I do not).
  
  Guilt by Association. You guys use that logical fallacy every day on this website. It is the cornerstone of nearly ALL of your arguments.

• Paul Gaskin

  2009-03-30 14:59:34

  I'll remind you again, Roy is not "haunting" Miguel. Miguel knows exactly who Roy is. They've got beef, but they're both upright and public.
  
  You said "exaggerated lies"?
  
  "Dan O'Brian" - again, is that your given name? Answer me that one question. If it is a pseudonym, then you are "haunting" Roy because you're a disembodied, anonymous, hostile entity.
  
  I could have used a stronger word, but I refrained, so don't tell me about exaggeration. Just tell me if "Dan O'Brian" is your given name or a pseudonym.

• Roy Schestowitz

  2009-03-30 15:03:55

  @Paul Gaskin:
  
  I think it's his real name, but I wish people knew why he loves Mono so much that he posts many hundreds of comments defending it at every chance. That's all the disclosure I want. He can't pretend to be foreign to Mono.

• JohnD

  2009-03-29 15:51:55

  Roy, Frankly I think you should welcome everyone with open arms until they violate posting rules. Flagging people based upon who they work for is really a form of censorship. One of the first things a new dictator does when he gains control is quell all opposing view points. It's easier to control people when the only information they have access to is what you feed them. This is why many religious extremists oppose education - it's easy to control the ignorant. You can't have true dialog or idea exchange unless both sides are treated equally. Flagging someone as an MS/Novell/BN employee will immediately prejudice readers both for and against. If your concerns are truly valid they will be able to bear the weight of criticism. Give the people the freedom and respect to check out the site, read articles and make up their own minds. If I'm not mistaken, the purpose of this site is to focus on what's happening in the IT industry - not us. When you start burrowing into who people are and what their motivations may be, you take your eye off the ball and get drawn into pointless discussions. You are allowed to post all of your ideas, give your site visitors the same opportunity. If you're not up to defending your posts, you should remove visitor posting ability. So what it boils down to is this: Do you want a web based soap box or an interactive site?

• Roy Schestowitz

  2009-03-29 15:55:11

  JohnD,
  
  If someone from Novell posts here, there are vested interests at play.. Very significant ones in fact.

• Dan O'Brian

  2009-03-29 16:00:44

  But if their arguments are valid, what difference does it make who posted the argument?
  
  You have vested interests too.

• JohnD

  2009-03-29 16:02:28

  Roy, I get it, but that's precisely why they should be heard. If Novell employees/supporters can't put together a cogent, fact based argument to refute your posts, why would anyone keep listening to them? If you're right and they are wrong then there's absolutely nothing they can say to undermine your position. If this is the case - why do them the favor of acknowledging who they are?

• Roy Schestowitz

  2009-03-29 16:07:09

  JohnD,
  
  It's the old debate about reasons for disclosure. Censorship/suppression and disclosure are separate things.

• JohnD

  2009-03-29 16:22:50

  Roy, When disclosure leads to censorship - they aren't separate. Both sides of disclosure have been discussed here in recent days and both sides have reasonable arguments. Honestly a person's posts should clue any reader of average intelligence as to their standing on the issues at hand. Everyone has their own interest and motivations - you included. Why any of us has chosen a particular side is not important. The only thing that should concern this site's readers are the issues. When you start deciding who should be listened to based upon where they work, or what projects they work on - your promoting censorship. If you truly support full disclosure you should have link in the banner section of every page that states your true intention for this site.

• Roy Schestowitz

  2009-03-29 16:29:54

  When disclosure leads to censorship - they aren’t separate.

  
  
  Disclosure never leads to censorship in our case.

• Dan O'Brian

  2009-03-29 16:36:04

  Roy: censorship doesn't have to involve blocking of comments.
  
  And you are trying to censor me by trying to get everyone to throw out my arguments with the bathwater based on who they are coming from. That is a form of censorship.

• JohnD

  2009-03-29 16:37:35

  I think the threads in this post indicate otherwise. People are already dismissing other posters because there's some "evidence" that a poster works for Novell or participates in projects that support "bad" software. Censorship is not just blocking posts, there are many levels. Creating and/or supporting an environment that trivializes posts based not on a lack of facts, but on perceived affiliations - is a form of censorship.

• Dan O'Brian

  2009-03-26 01:50:57

  By "you guys", I meant you, this guy Robert, your friend twitter, your friend Slated, and a few of your other groupies that hang out on IRC with you every day.

• Roy Schestowitz

  2009-03-26 01:55:26

  So, I should really start characterising Slashdot, Digg, etc. based on people who read it and participate. That'll make discrediting so much easier.
  
  Guilt by association...

• Paul Gaskin

  2009-03-26 01:59:31

  +1 for clarifying something mentioned earlier which is useful.
  
  -3 for implying that those of us who hang out in #boycottnovell are Roy's groupies.
  
  I'm more like a vulture, circling a dying beast. I want a piece of the market-share Microsoft is going to relinquish after many more of Roy's assertions come to pass.

• JohnD

  2009-03-26 04:25:19

  It's hard to assert something that has yet to pass. Roy is making assumptions about future events based upon past actions. While they may be reasonable assumptions based upon what is currently known, they are not facts. Only time can tell us if Roy will be right or wrong. I hope that most of Roy's predictions do not come to pass, not because of a blind devotion to Novell or ill will towards Roy, but because of the ramifications on the IT industry. I firmly believe that the best solution is to find a balance that allows patents and FOSS to exist side by side.

• Paul Gaskin

  2009-03-26 18:18:40

  I hope Roy is right about his predictions and I'll be active in trying to help them come to pass.
  
  Patent law applied to software is a very dumb legal precedent to lend any support to.
  
  Ramifications for the IT-industry be damned! Freedom is priceless.
  
  If software patents become firmly embedded into the legal system, I'll be practicing civil-disobedience when I write my programs.
  
  Ultimately the foolishness of those who can't comprehend "boundary issues" (in the context of software) will become apparent to the majority.

• Roy Schestowitz

  2009-03-26 18:45:05

  It's usually lawyers and protectionist (of their monopolies, status quo).
  
  Just look who it is that constantly lobbies for wars.

• Paul Gaskin

  2009-03-26 02:27:31

  Dan, given how long a time-span you've been disputing Roy, and over multiple forums, it would be appropriate for you to make a disclosure at this point.
  
  Your name turns up making critical references to Roy on BoycottNovell.com, Google Groups, on many other domains. That's a pretty serious and public dispute.
  
  You should disclose by saying something like "Hello, I'm Dan O'Brian, here is my blog, I'm acknowledging that I'm choosing to be a public-figure, and here is my connection to Novell, or I have no connection, but I think Roy is a big jerk..."

• Dan O'Brian

  2009-03-26 02:35:58

  Hello, I'm Dan O'Brian - I have no affiliation with Microsoft nor Novell and I think Roy is a flaming retard who clearly fails at researching his arguments before publishing them (while often they mistakenly accuse individuals and/or projects of wrong-doing when it isn't true, making excuses like "oh, I didn't have time to proofread or research because it gets in the way of my style").
  
  If Roy stopped publishing accusatory "news articles" without proper evidence, my interest in this site would be lost and I'd disappear.

• Roy Schestowitz

  2009-03-26 02:38:27

  You avoided the question.

• Paul Gaskin

  2009-03-26 02:45:36

  Dan, do you care to volunteer any more information about yourself? Do you have a blog? Are you an IT professional? Does your company use Novell's products? This is not a direct "affiliation" but it is still worth disclosing, considering the prolonged campaign you've waged against Roy's credibility. He is a PhD candidate and has a stake in his public reputation.

• Dan O'Brian

  2009-03-26 03:00:57

  Roy: what question did I avoid? I followed Paul's template exactly.
  
  Paul: I don't have a blog, I manage software engineers, we do not use Novell products at the company I work for - not that I see why that would matter.
  
  What about Jimmy (what was his last name? from Wikipedia) - his reputation isn't worth anything? What about the Free Software developers who contribute to Mono (or Mono-based applications)? Do they not have a stake in their personal reputations?

• Paul Gaskin

  2009-03-26 03:01:36

  Dan, I don't want you to "disappear". I'd like to know more about what has motivated you to make such an effort.
  
  If it has become personal for you about Roy, it is a good time to change the tone of the debate, since you're relatively mysterious and he's a public blogger with an academic career.
  
  It's not embarrassing to misunderstand the intricacies of software licensing and how it can negatively affect software user's freedom.

• Paul Gaskin

  2009-03-26 03:03:59

  Miguel and Roy are both public. If Miguel has a problem with Roy, at least he knows who to file suit against. Who are you?

• Paul Gaskin

  2009-03-26 02:50:55

  Dan,
  
  I'm hoping you'll reply to my most recent question by appending it to another one of my comment nodes which has a reply button.
  
  The lack of thread indentation support is a nuisance, but I still think my last question deserves an answer. It at or near the bottom and has this time-stamp:
  
  March 25th, 2009 at 9:45 pm

• JohnD

  2009-03-26 04:48:41

  I'm not sure full public disclosure should be a requirement to determine if someone's posts have merit. Just because someone works with or for Novell or Microsoft doesn't mean their opinions have less meaning or merit. That being said - personal attacks are counter productive and should be avoided at all costs. I've tried to follow the threads and I think I see both Paul and Dan's sides of the discussion. Each has valid points and not so valid points - in my opinion. Given the vehemence of some of these posts I would not recommend anyone provide personal information for fear that an over zealous supporter/opponent use the information in an effort to seek revenge or "make a point". Back to what started all of this: Roy I think you try to view this thread/topic objectively you'll see that it's kind of hard to support your statements that people are abusing your system. We're talking 30% of votes are a 1, which means 70% are better than that - to the outside observer the stats show a significant majority approve of your posts. Also claiming that people are trying to trash your site using a tool you provided is pretty weak. As I said before - if it's being abused get rid of it. Problem solved. I don't see the abuse you speak of, and no I don't think a bunch of links to other sites or posts will convince me otherwise. This is your site, you set the rules, don't get your knickers in a knot when you don't get the results you expected (assuming people are following the rules).

• Ian

  2009-03-26 16:10:26

  Disclosure is irrelevant in my opinion. Satan(a Microsoft stock holder I believe) could be posting on this site using Windows Vista and IE8 and that would be irrelevant. What matters is the content of the post and whether or not the facts or logical arguments presented are at least somewhat valid. To ignore or disagree with someone based on their background is ignorant and that's the only conclusion that "full disclosure" would arrive at. If someone posts something that they can't back up, that's on them and the background of that person or the person calling them on it is wholly irrelevant.
  
  As far as the rating system goes, I don't see how anyone could see it as a good system. Anyway you slice it, someone will be pissed because it's going to be gamed someway no matter who's doing it. The person who implemented it complaining that the votes aren't going his way is comical, I'm sorry. Turn the thing off, it's the content of the posts, not which star boycottnovell "haters" and "fanboys" click.

• Wes Garbero

  2009-03-26 20:03:51

  For what it is worth, my part of the commercial world treats these sort of popularity contests as a "Net Promoter Score" by taking the bottom ratings, 1 to 6 and subtracting them from the top 2 ratings, 9 and 10, ignoring all the 7 and 8 ratings which are deemed neutral. The result is a plus or minus or zero score that says that your are doing well (plus) or not so well (minus). Then you sample every so often to see if you are getting better or are losing ground. The rankings are not very useful as any absolute measure.

• twitter

  2009-03-26 05:57:03

  50 comments by the usual trolls saying the usual things. Roy points out the obvious, that dorks like Dan No Brain will push "1" every time to make it look like readers think the articles are of poor quality, while those actually interested in the site push 7,8,9 and 10 to give real feedback. The record is unmistakable. So what's Dan No Brain's reaction? To say Twitter is a troll and Boycot Novell sucks. Perfect in every way. These people are here to shit on you and other free software advocates. Don't help them out.
  
  I've used sock puppets because tolls gamed Slashdot and censored me there. The user "twitter" may only comment once a day, and every comment receives negative moderation so that they do not appear on the default view. The limitation is a huge win for the trolls and a big loss for legitimate users like myself. They found out about the sock puppets for the most part and mod bombed them too. There is no "guilt" in my actions nor is there any guilt in my contributions to this site. No, I'm not about to write up my own disclosure log - the troll's ability to identify my sock puppets was part of my small scale experiment and they lose both ways. If they correctly identify me, they are either chronically obsessive or monitoring my traffic. If they don't, I get around their censorship. By agreeing with these asses, you validate their lies and ignore the obvious gaming they engage in themselves.
  
  Koodos for collecting and displaying statistics. They proved your point. Shame for feeling guilty about anything. Just point out that the trolls are busted and ignore the rest - it's a waste of your time.

• Dan O'Brian

  2009-03-26 14:41:12

  AFAICT, they down-mod you because they know you are trolling with multiple accounts. It's called karma.

• twitter

  2009-03-26 20:29:50

  The modbombing started before the sock puppets, something you can easily see from comment histories and the number of stories I've published going back ten years. You can also look back at the vicious and personal attacks leveled against me. It's not karma, it's a deliberate and prolonged smear. The easiest proof of gaming is the sudden shift in moderation for the "twitter" account. I was threatened with modbombing and the treats were acted on. You should know this better than others because you are here to shit on the site and probably cooperated with those who shat all over Slashdot and me.
  
  None of this, of course, has anything to do with the rather obvious gaming of Boycott Novell's little moderation system. You losers need to improve your methods to make the content look polarizing rather than gamed. You will have to spend more money on bots / drones in China to get it done, ramping up slowly and making the distribution look more like real polling results. Quit being so cheap! Your attempts are just as crude as your earlier Slashdot work.
  
  No matter how much you spend and how "good" you make it, you are doomed to fail. Editorial control remains in the hands of people with a clue. As you destroy one site's conversation, two more will rise to take it's place. The harder you push, the more you show how evil you are. Of course, no amount of spin and bullshit will make Vista a success or save M$ from failure. Non free software does not work and you can't turn that shit into shineola.

• Yggdrasil

  2009-03-27 00:50:21

  If anything, the number of votes is more damaging than the actual ratings given. I wouldn't trust any numbers provided by Roy, but I think based on the small number of votes shown it's safe to say this website isn't very popular except with the two small diametrically opposed groups who frequent it.
  
  Furthermore, some people just prefer to vote "1" or "10" simply because it's easier to give a binary answer (thumps up, thumbs down) than to spend a lot of time grading it on a 10 point scale.

• Roy Schestowitz

  2009-03-27 01:01:33

  The Web site does about 4GB of traffic per day these days, a quarter of which comes from crawlers. Most of the traffic happens in the archives (we have almost 10k pages).

• JohnD

  2009-03-26 16:57:18

  I agree with Ian's post. This site can be what ever it's creator/maintainer wants it to be. If you just want a public space to slam products and/or issues you don't agree with - that's fine just be upfront about it. If you want it to be a place that encourages open and honest dialog, that's great too, but you have to be willing to tolerate opposing view points. This applies to all posters. I would say this to Roy. As a PHD candidate you should have a healthy appreciation for being complete and thorough in your research. A proof is something that's true all the time, not just part of the time. If your field of endeavour is one that will have you publishing things for public consumption, you need to realize that people will be relying upon you to provide them with accurate information. When you do research to support and idea or argument, you need to research both sides in order to have a good understanding of the issue. When people gather information for the sole purpose of supporting their viewpoint - they do themselves and the people relying upon them a disservice. I'm not saying this to belittle or injure you, I'm just trying to give you my perspective. One good thing this site does is gather information that I'm interested in and puts it in one place - kind of like slashdot. It's a big reason I come here. Out of disagreements come discussions. Out of discussions come understanding. With understanding we can begin to find solutions.

• JohnD

  2009-03-26 22:38:56

  I understand the ideology, but it has to give way to business reality. Most business' are heavily invested in M$. While FOSS gives them a compelling reason to switch (being low or no cost for the os and many apps) there are more reasons to not switch at least for the time being. From an ideology standpoint the Novell/MS deal sucks, but from a business stand point it makes sense. This is borne out when you consider that RedHat also made a deal (sans patents) to make help the 2 sides work together. Mono leverages skills that already exist in corporate environments - that helps make moving to FOSS a more acceptable business case. It's the proverbial foot in the door. Once you're in then you can start showing off the really good stuff. Corporate inertia is immense and you're not going to sway it with passionate diatribes. Cost savings alone won't do the job - things still need to "just work".

• Ian

  2009-03-26 19:27:29

  @Paul,
  
  You said:
  
  Dan, if you won’t disclose your company’s name (I have not advised you to do so), maybe you can disclose a bit of information about the software projects you’re involved in, to lend context to the discussion.
  
  This isn't a troll, but a serious question. What does it matter what projects he's involved in and how does it lend any context to any discussion outside of this particular "article"?

• Paul Gaskin

  2009-03-26 20:11:48

  If he is involved in Novell-sponsored projects such as mono, Microsoft may, at a later date, assert patent claims for specific features of the project. Is his company building the trojan horse of patent liability which they expect us to welcome as some kind of gift?

• Ian

  2009-03-26 20:41:18

  Even if anyone who dissented with the overall viewpoints of this website worked for Novell, who is expecting anyone to welcome mono as some kind of gift? These software companies don't contribute to open source out of the goodness of their collective hearts and reward us end users with things such as mono. These companies contribute to open source because it behooves them to strategically. Open Source software is the great equalizer of economies of scale as opposed to 100% home grown and proprietary software That, I argue, is the biggest reason companies leverage Open Source. It's not about gifts and we shouldn't be expected to welcome any of it if we don't want to.

• JohnD

  2009-03-26 21:04:16

  I still don't think someone working, or not working, with mono makes a difference. The only thing that should matter in these discussions are current events and cold hard facts. If Danis trying to get his customers to use mono, and Roy's predictions come true - Dan is the one who has to deal with the fall out, not the other people on this site. Everyone here is free to use whatever tools they like and they are free to promote their use amongst their clients - that's true freedom. Claiming that there is no other way to do business, but the "free" way is just as dangerous a declaring proprietary as the "only" way. I still think that finding a middle ground is the best way to go for everyone.

• Paul Gaskin

  2009-03-26 21:22:33

  I agree to some extent, but the non-free software is greatly over-represented in market-share and they're due to be down-sized.
  
  To each his own license, but the battle over software patents is not something I will recuse myself from. I'm opposed in principle to that mis-application of patent law.
  
  I'm focused on entrepreneurial ventures. I plan to help usher in the era of more sophisticated software licenses which are respectful of users.
  
  I'm not looking for middle-ground or compromise with scorched-earth, monopolist, propagandist, corporate bullies.
  
  I want their clients and their revenue for myself. Computer users will benefit in the end from a more liberalized internet and I will hopefully be able finance a yacht and a château on the French Riviera for my efforts.

• Roy Schestowitz

  2009-03-26 21:43:33

  JohnD,
  
  Proprietary software is not the only/greatest concern. I don't mind Lotus so much because IBM is not attacking Free software unlike, for example, Microsoft, which is trying to illegalise and eradicate it using lawsuits over copyrights and software patents,
  
  To disagree with the other side is one thing; to attack the other side is another, not just to substitute it.
  
  Had Mono duplicated Java (SUN/IBM), reasons for concern would be fewer.

• Dan O'Brian

  2009-03-26 22:51:45

  I'm not involved with the Mono project, I have to ask or, heaven forbid, google search to get answers just like everyone else here.
  
  The problem is that Roy and the other BNers don't bother to ask the questions or do the google searches to get those answers, they just cry wolf and leave it up to people like me to prove them wrong.
  
  They forget, however, that Mono and other projects that they've attacked should be considered innocent until proven guilty, not the other way around.

• saulgoode

  2009-03-28 03:39:10

  Well, I don't intend to ever vote and I won't be paying any attention to the ratings.
  
  And as far as who people are and what they do, I will steal a quote from Rob Weir: "A resume is poor substitute for a sound argument."
  
  Regards.

• PaulGaskin

  2009-03-28 18:17:47

  Saul, I can understand that. I really prefer up-or-down voting which displays who voted how on every single comment, just by hovering over with the mouse.
  
  That really makes for a hot forum. Anonymous 5-star voting may be good for movie reviews, but it's not very interactive. But it was good fodder for conversation about astro-turfers.
  
  I've been lobbying Roy to upgrade from Wordpress to Drupal so he can have the kind of forum which really supports a complex social environment with cliques, vendettas, and such.

• G. Michaels

  2009-03-30 02:31:56

  It's possible that Dan O'Brian is one of the people who have been slagged and victimized by BoycottBoy in the name of freedom and apple pie, in which case it's probably prudent to not reveal who he is. In any case, constantly implying that he is employed by Eeevil Novell probably makes people pay more attention to what he says, and unlike most of the BoycottBoys, at least he doesn't lie through his teeth. His posts on here are enough of a track record to establish that. As far as I know correcting factual inaccuracies is not a crime yet, at least not in the jurisdiction where this server is hosted.
  
  I have to give the proprietor high marks for adding a "feature" to his blog that is used one day later (one whole day!) to complain that it's being used for nefarious purposes. It's almost as if he did it on purpose. Is this "story" going to be used for future link splashes as "proof" that the minions of evil are hounding him? Possibly. Although I've noticed he doesn't use the Jimmi Hugh hit job very much. Which reminds me Roy - maybe you should take Roy Bixler's advice and do a follow up on that, it would be super entertaining!
  
  And Paul Gaskin, I hope no one ever ties your "balzac" comments on the IRC logs about your supposed exploits at titty bars to your real identity. I bet that won't go over well with potential employers. That is, unless you can actually convince Richard Stallman of selling plush GNUs for $50 a pop and advertise them here, haha.
  
  Oh, and I almost forgot. Will (er, "twitter"), have you thought about becoming a science fiction author? You have the most amazing knack for making up unbelievable stories and trying to sell them as plausible, even though everyone reading them knows they're, well, completely implausible. Let me know if you want to continue on this "it was all an experiment" track, I have lots of Slashdot links that you'd have a blast trying to explain in that context.