--"Gnome to be based on .NET – de Icaza"
Don't let Mono and Moonlight tarnish GNOME
Novell's Mono projects are starting to take problematic shape. As Jason puts it after some research, Banshee begins to overlap Microsoft Moonlight, which is Mono-dependent. And as we already know, the Novell-sponsored Banshee uses parts of .NET which are not covered by Microsoft's "community promise". The word "Trojan" comes to mind and Red Hat should pay careful attention again.
Yes. That’s right. According to the GCDS 2009 presentation notes on the Banshee site, we learn lots of nice stuff about Banshee:
“It’s not just an app, it’s a platform”.
* Long term goal is to write the UI in Moonlight o Declarative UI, canvas, scene graph, and toolkit o Moonlight is an Open Source implementation of Microsoft’s Silverlight technology … and it is awesome
“Banshee is going to do photos”
“We are re-basing the F-Spot core on top of Banshee”
And it ends with GNOME, Mono and Banshee logos.
Moonlight is of course, absolutely toxic unless you get it directly from Novell, as the so-called “covenant” specifically prohibits non-Novell distributions from distributing Moonlight
It seems we are settling on the “best-of-breed” as the ultimate justification. This is a good stop if you are on Team Mono, because you can call any application the “best-of-breed” so long as you are the one that gets to decide what factors make it the “best-of-breed”.
I always chuckle around #4; Team Mono is forever chanting “pragmatism” and how “the user doesn’t care about freedom or principles”. Yet it’s quite clear that the overwhelming majority of users do not want Banshee. So, do the users matter or not? It seems to me that how much they matter is in direct proportion to how much they support you on any specific issue.
When Britain was the superpower of the world, there was one tactic which its officials used, with great success, to manage its colonies - divide and rule.
Bradley and Karen discuss the community debate regarding C# and Mono, and its inclusion in GNU/Linux distributions.
How on earth could a 19th century detective know about the long running saga of a rather large and bloated software stack designed, it seems, simply to drive a wedge into the FOSS community and act as a trojan horse for our most [ahem] loved convicted monopolist?
I just released gnote 0.5.3. It is a bug fix release.
I don't know what the meme is about but:
I WRITE CODE
In a comment on another post, Chris Halse Rogers raised an interesting and challenging question: “What evidence is there that Novell, the company, is promoting adoption of Mono into GNOME?”
Here’s where I attempt to answer that question! The easy part
It’s always more effective to knock out the easy stuff first. So let’s establish that the premise is at least reasonable. Here are some facts. Facts are a nice way to start:
1. Mono is a Novell project. 2. Novell is on the GNOME Foundation’s Advisory Board. 3. Mono is lead at Novell by the founder of GNOME, Miguel de Icaza. 4. Mr. de Icaza has said in the past, “Gnome 4.0 should be based on .NET“ 5. Mr. de Icaza claims to be “in charge of Novell’s Linux Desktop Strategy” along with Nat Friedman.
[...]
--Miguel de Icaza
Comments
eet
2009-07-15 10:31:44
Two thumbs down for your! :p
David "Lefty" Schlesinger
2009-07-15 12:24:18
niemau
2009-07-15 16:55:55
there are many reasons that many people don't want to use mono. and right now, it's troubling that there is such a concentrated push to make it more and more critical to the linux desktop.
even if you just consider the novell angle, it's a questionable situation. not horribly long ago, novell *did* sign a patent covenant with microsoft that the vast majority of the FOSS community was very troubled by. it was a disgusting slap in the face of free software users and developers. even to this day, MS and novell have refused to elaborate on which several hundred patents were being infringed. considering that supposed infringement is the justification for the patent covenant to begin with, why is this not more open?
by taking the course novell has taken, they are basically telling developers that they acknowledge these mysterious patent violations while not even allowing developers to work around the patent issues. of course, why would they? they're 'protected'. this sends out a very troubling signal. given their history, they do NOT deserve to be trusted as a leader in FOSS.
and all of this is before we even consider the implications of MONO! why, for heaven's sake, would anybody outside of novell and their user base, consider using this software knowing full well that they do not act with the community's best interests in regard to patent concerns?
how can anybody trust these two entities when they cannot even be open about the patents that are supposedly being infringed? and why should we walk into a potential trap by embracing software that we already KNOW could have legal ramifications?
David "Lefty" Schlesinger
2009-07-15 17:34:56
No, I'm not. Try working on that reading comprehension. Move your lips, it might help.
eet
2009-07-15 18:10:27
'Passion' doesn't excuse what Roy does. Got nothing to do with (what little) content his defamations have.
patrick
2009-07-15 11:38:29
eet
2009-07-15 11:54:55
niemau
2009-07-15 18:44:29
Roy Schestowitz
2009-07-15 11:59:31
David "Lefty" Schlesinger
2009-07-15 12:09:40
David "Lefty" Schlesinger
2009-07-15 12:20:16
Oh, stop, Roy. No one's "smearing" Stallman because of his statements on Mono, and you do the community's concerns about Stallman's statements about and behavior toward women a grave disservice by attempting to cast them in this way.
When you say this, you're saying that there's nothing wrong with singling out women as technological chowderheads who need assistance from the (presumably male) members of the "Church or EMACS" in order to be (involuntarily?) "relieved" of their "virginity".
I asked you before what you opinion of that statement, and finally dragged something like an admission out of you that you found it somewhat problematical. Now, you're rushing to sweep it right under the rug again while screaming "BUT IT'S REALLY ALL ABOUT MONO!"
Such actions look a lot like an implicit endorsement of Stallman's "joke", Roy. So, let's hear a clear statement from you on what Stallman said.
Do you see how someone could find it offensive, and justifiably so?
Do you think that a "joke" like that would be tolerated for as many as five minutes from someone who wasn't Richard Stallman?
These are "yes" or "no" questions, Roy.
Roy Schestowitz
2009-07-15 12:32:01
Roy Schestowitz
2009-07-15 12:38:36
You don't like Stallman and you don't like the GPL. Fine, we get it.
Here is a better site for you to visit: apple.com.
Should I point out to readers of this site that you are not even a GNU/Linux user? You are using Mac OS X.
David "Lefty" Schlesinger
2009-07-15 12:47:47
You don’t like Stallman and you don’t like the GPL.
I don't like Stallman's idea of a "joke", that's certain, but I've explicitly said that I have absolutely no problems with the v2 GPL. I do have issues with the v3 version, and I've laid out a few of them in some details (to blank stares and slack jaws from those around here, apparently). So stop making up things (again), Roy.
I understand that it would be a lot more convenient for you folks if someone weren't throwing all these inconvenient facts based on actual long-standing experience in the community at you, but that's the way life is. You're going to have to confront reality at some point, because it will certainly confront you, whether you like it or not.
Should I point out to readers of this site that you are not even a GNU/Linux user? You are using Mac OS X.
Feel free. I run Ubuntu as well as a custom "from scratch" distro in Parallels. Is that supposed to be responsive to my arguments, or is that simply an effort to create a face-saving way for you to run away from a discussion in which you're, quite frankly, getting your ass kicked into next week?
How, precisely, does using a Mac make my opinions invalid? You're the one who whines about "attacking the messenger" to "discredit the message". Isn't that exactly what you've just done?
eet
2009-07-15 12:52:21
- You say David 'doesn't like the GPL' because he's not fond of GPL v3. Well, here I have news for you: NEITHER DOES LINUS TORVALDS! So, in your logic Linus doesn't like the GPL...
Let us make it sensationalist, as you seem to like that, LINUX ISN'T GPL'd! (Not under the GPL v3, that is...)
Is that what you wanted to tell us, Roy - you don't accept anything but GPL v3 as being 'GPL'? Hmmm... Well, for me, the license of the Linux kernel is good enough, but maybe not for you. How about you quit using it then?
And what kind of shitty remark is that with the Mac; by god, there's as many MacBook as ThinkPad users among Linux devs.
Grow up, it is about time!
David "Lefty" Schlesinger
2009-07-15 12:56:44
So, it's actually your own fault that I'm continuing spending time here on this. Sorry For The Inconvenience.
David "Lefty" Schlesinger
2009-07-15 13:23:40
David "Lefty" Schlesinger
2009-07-15 13:33:21
Should I point out to readers of this site that you are not even a GNU/Linux user? You are using Mac OS X.
Oh, heavens, no! B'rer Fox, please don't tell people that I use a Mac! Oh, wait, you just did.
Hey, Roy, should I point out to readers that you're a two-faced liar who says one thing in the comments and completely the converse in IRC and in email, who grossly misstates the facts (like my "telling you" to contact Fink, like you and Jeff Waugh "working out your differences on the phone"), who makes insincere apologies and then proceeds to continue to do exactly what he promised he'd "endeavor to avoid" "in the future"?
Oh, wait, I just did.
Sorry. My bad.
David "Lefty" Schlesinger
2009-07-15 14:00:47
On the other hand, you seem to have the leisure to plow through logs to determine what kind of a computer I'm using in order to try to use that to discredit my statements.
Odd, that.
David "Lefty" Schlesinger
2009-07-15 14:23:40
Hey, Roy, you misspelled, "Pleeeeeeeeeeeeease!! Leave me aloooooooooooone!! Pleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeease!"
David "Lefty" Schlesinger
2009-07-15 15:09:06
Actually, Roy, I think you should go even further than that. Since you've cleverly unmasked my thin tissue of falsehoods in this fashion, I think you should tell the world.
I'd immediately get in contact with the GNOME Foundation (where I'm a member of the Advisory Board), and the Linux Foundation (where I'm a key leader in mobile-related efforts), and the FSF Europe (where I'm a member of their Legal and Licensing Network) and tell them all that I'm "not a Linux user".
For that matter, I think you ought to inform the organizers of the upcoming Open Source in Mobile conference (where I'm presenting) and the eComm conference (where I'll be on a panel) and tell them, too, just how you managed to cleverly unmask the truth about me.
Just curious, Roy: as a "journalist" and the "editor" of this highly influential web site here, have you ever been asked to present at a conference or appear on a panel?
David "Lefty" Schlesinger
2009-07-15 12:40:11
Silly me!
Maybe it was the fact that you prominently mention the article on the mono-nono site which prominently and specifically makes such claims, along with the fact that you've made them yourself and supported others here who have done so confused me.
While we're on the subject of my confusion, perhaps you can explain to me just how gnote is a "remedy" for Banshee. In my experience, a note-taking program is not an excellent substitute for a media player.
David "Lefty" Schlesinger
2009-07-15 12:58:23
Roy Schestowitz
2009-07-15 13:01:11
As much as you'll provoke for responses, I'll carry on ignoring you just as I ignore all Internet trolls.
eet
2009-07-15 13:05:26
And what facts do you base that provocative claim on?
David "Lefty" Schlesinger
2009-07-15 13:06:07
I'm sure it must make you feel better to believe something like that, but I think it's more likely that the fact is that you're failing to make your case here.
Maybe when you say "you guys", you mean the readership of the site, and when you say "gaming the ratings" you mean voting your articles less than a 5.
joo
2009-07-15 13:07:16
Then again, that's one less thing you could bitch & moan about.
asfjkas
2009-07-15 13:09:18
Funny that Roy complains about smear campaigns against him.
Let's take a look at the Microsoft employee who came here yesterday to correct misinformation that Roy was spreading. Low and behold, Roy immediately posts a new "article" claiming that he was being "attacked" by said Microsoft employee.
Honesty and truth are the last things on Roy's agenda.
David "Lefty" Schlesinger
2009-07-15 13:14:56
Where's the gaming? That sounds like four people gave my article four stars, and three people gave your article one star.
So what are you talking about?
eet
2009-07-15 13:34:47
Yes, mine, too. I don't work in the IT sector and I don't get to choose my operating system.
Oh, and of course, David is in it, too, because he posts from a Mac; yeah; right.
And to top it all of, we, the accused cannot comment on your libellous article. Yeah, that's Roy as we know, the perky little rascal, gotta love, no?
Tell me one thing: For HOW stupid do you take your readers anyway?
asfjkas
2009-07-15 12:40:52
Note that the CP didn't become public until early July, not June.
Caught in another lie, Roy. How are you going to spin yourself out of this one?
Roy Schestowitz
2009-07-15 12:42:50
asfjkas
2009-07-15 12:44:40
Here's your claim, from your article:
Roy Schestowitz
2009-07-15 12:46:48
asfjkas
2009-07-15 12:57:03
David "Lefty" Schlesinger
2009-07-15 13:07:40
David "Lefty" Schlesinger
2009-07-15 14:42:49
I don't get the impression that Roy has the technical chops to do so much as replace the logo in the header here or change the color scheme. I could be mistaken. Roy?
Jose_X
2009-07-15 19:44:02
>> Oh, and forgive me for pointing out what seems like a subtle inconsistency, Roy. You’ve claimed that there’s just too much activity on this site for you to manage to remember things like having had multiple interactions with, and discussions of, Mark Fink, or even the circumstances under which you claim to have written him just a few weeks ago.
>> On the other hand, you seem to have the leisure to plow through logs to determine what kind of a computer I’m using in order to try to use that to discredit my statements.
It's not inconsistent (a) to forget a piece of information and (b) to look things up.
When you plow logs, you look things up. You might even be looking for something very specific and small. Yet that has nothing to do with not remembering something that happened earlier in time. Heck, you can plow logs to look something up that you forgot about. This general pattern happens all the time.
[I am not speaking for Roy, Fink, any of these events you just mentioned. I'm simply pointing out the mistake above over what is consistent.]
>> I’d immediately get in contact with the GNOME Foundation (where I’m a member of the Advisory Board), and the Linux Foundation (where I’m a key leader in mobile-related efforts), and the FSF Europe (where I’m a member of their Legal and Licensing Network) and tell them all that I’m “not a Linux user”.
I think the point of this comment is to show your credentials (and fight back potential attack of the messenger); however, the comment about the Mac suggests preferences to me (can't remember if I saw Roy claiming you didn't use Linux).
>> Just curious, Roy: as a “journalist” and the “editor” of this highly influential web site here, have you ever been asked to present at a conference or appear on a panel?
There are many distinguished individuals that like "IP" or don't want FOSS to be legally squeaky clean. Many such individuals might be invited to such business oriented conferences.
My point is that you using Linux or presenting in these places does not address most of what this site criticizes and worries about.
>> Oh, gosh, excuse me. I simply assumed–since people have been lashing out at me here for the past four or five days for “defaming” Stallman by accurately reporting his sexist comments and claiming that the actual reason I was calling Stallman on his expressed attitudes about women was that I disliked Mono–that this was what you referring to.
You should defend yourself, yes,
..but I have seen attack after attack by you against this site and those that participate here, and it started earlier than 5 days ago.
Is it the case that you had left but was only recently dragged back in?
>> Silly me!
Don't be hard on yourself.
>> Hey, Roy, have you noticed that my comments seem to get consistently higher ratings than your do? And on your own site! Good thing you’ve got the courage of your convictions, otherwise I’d have to imagine you could only find that pretty embarrassing.
That's a silly thing to bring up. I hardly think it suggests what you are saying it suggests.
>> What? “Gaming the ratings”? That’s a bold claim, especially when the aggregate number of ratings remains fairly low and fairly consistent.
Oh, please. The lower the numbers, the easier it is to game. What are you talking about?
And seeing from 0 to 15 votes is a wide range. In fact, if the mean were to be around 3 or 4, 14 is many std deviations to the high side.
>> How are we doing that, exactly, Roy?
I'm not suggesting anyone is gaming, but it would be quite easy.
Anyway, people follow blogs and tweets and mailing lists and what not.
Let me ask directly, do you really not see how easy it could be to game these few votes (even without faking IPs or cookies or whatever this site uses to limit voting)?
>> Here, perfect example: my comment that I get better ratings than you do currently has four votes and an aggregate score of 4.0; your response that people are gaming the ratings has three votes and an aggregate score of 1.0 at the moment.
>> Where’s the gaming? That sounds like four people gave my article four stars, and three people gave your article one star.
>> So what are you talking about?
You have a failure of imagination (wouldn't surprise me if you thing mono is not extra risky), or you are being disingenuous.
Jose_X
2009-07-15 19:01:06
That would be one fairly literal translation. Interesting you would keep favoring a literal translation of what is fairly widely recognized to be some type of a performance and whose author has said is not meant to be taken literally.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Modest_Proposal
Did someone tape that presentation so we could judge for ourselves?
Insisting on a literal interpretation might be confused for character assassination.
David Gerard
2009-07-15 19:29:33
David "Lefty" Schlesinger
2009-07-15 19:36:48
David seems to be having trouble with his vision. Apparently when he looks at me, I appear to be a major corporation.
Jose_X
2009-07-15 19:51:05
There are many groups that might not like RMS. Looking out for users/consumers too much doesn't make many friends among big corps.
Fortunately for Stallman and others, Microsoft is and continues to be a real threat. In particular, it's too easy to abuse software and the monopolies likely created through the use of closed source so that many parts of industry suffer (esp with Microsoft being so ambitious).
It has helped Stallman, etc, that the GPL is shrewd in many ways (eg, towards some types of businesses).
Judging by David's ("lefty") comments, a new group might be in town: those adopting Linux on devices (or supporting this group) who don't like the anti-tivoization measures.
Roy Schestowitz
2009-07-15 19:54:54
David "Lefty" Schlesinger
2009-07-15 20:20:54
Or maybe...just maybe...it's people who have an actual concrete objection to Stallman's use of sexualized jokes, focused specifically on women, in the context of a keynote at a major technical conference.
Evidently, in Roy's and Jose's book, Stallman may not be criticized for anything he says, ever, and--clearly--no one could actually, by any stretch of the imagination, really take offense at a "joke" just because it denigrates, demeans and singles out specific and particular members of the audience, especially when it refers to the involuntary "relief" of their "virginity". There's nothing at all offensive there, right? There has to be a real reason for it!
You guys are amazing. I'm actually glad you don't show up at conferences, your viewpoints are appallingly toxic.
David "Lefty" Schlesinger
2009-07-15 19:35:00
Couldn't say. But your attempts to "explain away" something that clearly offended many people suggest that it wouldn't matter.
Insisting on a literal interpretation might be confused for character assassination.
Jose, insisting that the people who were offended by this were wrong to be offended is almost as bad as the original statement.
And if reporting someone's words, verbatim, constitutes "character assassination", it's certainly a form of it I can't say I've ever encountered. Maybe you mean to say that Stallman was assassinating his own character.
But I've already challenged you to provide your interpretation. There's ample substantiation from folks who were at GCDS that my reporting of the remarks is accurate.
So, how should we all have taken Stallman's little "joke", Jose? Enlighten us.
(It a shame, I suppose, that you weren't there to provide a sort of "simultaneous translation" and explain to all of us why the feelings that we were having were actually all somehow wrong. Think of the pain everyone could have been spared! And to think that you feel that participating in these events has no value!)
Jose_X
2009-07-15 20:03:31
A few people complain. Most likely don't bother to talk about it or to email Stallman or recognized they may have misjudged (I'm guessing here since I don't have the data).
A Modest Proposal offended many people. Still does. I'm sure it still offends many people, yet I really think, despite the delivery, it was well-intentioned and aimed to curve some abuses of the time (by the upper classes I believe).
>> Jose, insisting that the people who were offended by this were wrong to be offended is almost as bad as the original statement.
Pay attention. I suggested no such thing.
What I suggested is that after being told it was not to be taken literally, you seem to WANT MORE PEOPLE to be offended by continuing to treat it as if it was to be taken literally.
>> And if reporting someone’s words, verbatim, constitutes “character assassination”,
Well if you were attacking Stallman, it would not be with his words, but rather with everything you added before and after them.
..like effectively continuing to insist, at this very moment, that Stallman is to be taken literally.
>> But I’ve already challenged you to provide your interpretation. There’s ample substantiation from folks who were at GCDS that my reporting of the remarks is accurate.
Stallman himself recognizes that audience members may have misunderstood. They should email him. He would likely tell them that he was not to be taken literally.
I did not see this performance that may very well have missed its delivery mark by a wide shot (more so if the audience was sensed to be hostile or uninterested, as they likely were from what you have said).
I also don't know what Stallman meant; however, you haven't convinced me that Stallman was being candid or behaving much differently than Jonathan Swift (except in delivery).
>> So, how should we all have taken Stallman’s little “joke”, Jose? Enlighten us.
It would help if I saw the performance. I have not. Do you have a youtube clip of a past performance (and I'll try to add in your quotes from this one at the relevant parts).
Roy Schestowitz
2009-07-15 20:12:51
David "Lefty" Schlesinger
2009-07-15 20:43:10
You absolutely did. By making the suggestion that there's some special, "non-literal" interpretation of Stallman's joke that all of us who found it offensive were simply somehow too dense to figure out is saying that we were wrong to be offended. If we had your magical insight into what Stallman really meant--instead of just dopily taking it "literally" the way we all did--then there wouldn't have been a problem at all!
I note that every time I ask you to share this special understanding of yours, you dodge into "Well, I wasn't there, I haven't seen it." I've provided what Stallman said, numerous times. No one who was there has raised even the slightest disagreement over the way I've reported it. Yet--in spite of your insistence on the existence of this "non-literal" interpretation--you can't manage to interpret the statement at all.
You're neither convincing nor persuasive, Jose. You come off as someone who will go to any lengths to try to sweep someone's bad behavior under the rug because it's incovenient for you to actually acknowledge it.
David "Lefty" Schlesinger
2009-07-17 04:09:00
Patrick
2009-07-15 12:41:34
I was talking about a Gnome fork. I'm not a mono-hater, and I'm not a mono-fan. I think that mono just should not be integrated by default. MS was never frendly to opensource, why would them be now?
Mono is "run-time heavy". You need almost twice the resources to run a simple mono app (like Tomboy). I mean, there is not benefit from using mono.
And if OSS is about choice, why force people to use a desktop environment (Gnome, in case) they like with stuff they don't need?
Roy Schestowitz
2009-07-15 12:47:52
Patrick
2009-07-15 12:53:34
JohnD
2009-07-15 13:23:19
David "Lefty" Schlesinger
2009-07-15 13:36:15
(And don't rate his comments anything less than five stars, that's gaming the ratings.)
If you persist in this vein, Roy is liable to tell everybody that you use a Mac or something.
JohnD
2009-07-15 14:01:40
eet
2009-07-15 14:03:57
David "Lefty" Schlesinger
2009-07-15 14:17:49
I'm more interested in the following points:
- what Roy and his minions do is not only completely out of touch with the actual community, it's very much at odds with the spirit of that community - this site in general, and Roy in particular, has absolutely no commitment to things like actual journalism, the truth, fair reporting, or "healthy debate"
Jose_X
2009-07-15 20:35:40
"La la la la, I can't hear you Jose."
Answer this for me if you find the time, do you still think it is difficult to game the ratings here, especially when the average number of votes is so small?
And if you find a little bit more time, answer this as well: have you read A Modest Proposal and do you really think Stallman is to be taken literally rather than closer to the aforementioned essay?
A link to RMS's performance would help me. Remember that I was not there, and have never seen it.
>> - what Roy and his minions do is not only completely out of touch with the actual community, it’s very much at odds with the spirit of that community
What is at odds about changing distros and helping point out the threats of why others should as well if they want to avoid certain types of liabilities and support for monopoly platforms?
Ken sees Ubuntu losing some momentum http://www.linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2009-07-04-006-35-OS-UB-0023
>> - this site in general, and Roy in particular, has absolutely no commitment to things like actual journalism, the truth, fair reporting, or “healthy debate”
He probably doesn't have a commitment to the highest standards in journalism and fair reporting, but you can say that about virtually anyone, especially about a blogging site.
I think he cares about the truth quite a bit though it's difficult to know the truth many times, and you likely don't like his guesses at the truth and various assumptions made (we all make assumptions; we don't all make the same assumptions).
As for healthy debate, I notice that you are here commenting without restrictions, apparently.
I also noticed this:
>> I’m trying to be focused here–not an easy thing in the face of people like Jose who seem to wander all over the map in what passes for “argumentation”–so I’m not commenting on every little snipe and libel that Roy posts here.
David "Lefty" Schlesinger
2009-07-15 21:05:24
Answer this for me if you find the time, do you still think it is difficult to game the ratings here, especially when the average number of votes is so small?
I'm still waiting for Roy to explain what he means by "gaming the ratings". I can only vote once. I naturally fgiven my postings high ratings, and I generally give yours and Roy's low ones, because you're unresponsive, fail to stay on topic (e.g. a digression into Jonathan Swift, or a diversion into software patents when we were discussing your lack of participation in community events, thanks to your supposed "division of labor"). I assume everyone else gets to vote once as well, and that they, likewise, vote their opinions.
Roy made his claim, it's not up to me to disprove it. I've asked him for his evidence, and he hasn't provided it. Given the history of "truthfulness" around here, why would I take Roy's word? As far as I know, he's simply claiming that the ratings are being gamed because he (and you) get pretty consistently poor ones. I think you're just poor losers.
And if you find a little bit more time, answer this as well: have you read A Modest Proposal...
Yes, I have, several times. Gulliver's Travels, too. I've also read de Quincey's "On Murder Considered as One of the Fine Arts", Sartre's L'ÃÅ tre et le Néant in the original French, several short stories and essays by Yoshimoto Banana, Utsuichi and others, in the original Japanese, the collected works of William Shakespeare, all of Conan-Doyle's Sherlock Holmes stories, and a variety of other things. In fact, I suspect that if you wanted to compare reading lists, I'd kick you into next year, Jose: I am a prolific reader, and I can read at 500 works a minute, thank you.
and do you really think Stallman is to be taken literally rather than closer to the aforementioned essay?
I think it's immaterial. If it was intended as some sort of satire, it fell flat. It offended the audience at which it was aimed. It singled out a minority of the participants for a sort of attention which they found entirely unwelcome. It was wrong, plain and simple, Jose. Your tap-dancing around that does you no credit. As I've pointed out, you're simply saying that the audience was wrong to be offended and too dumb to get what Stallman really meant (in spite of the fact that you can't even offer a guess at what that might have been.
A link to RMS's performance would help me. Remember that I was not there, and have never seen it.
Oh, trust me, I haven't forgotten that you weren't there, Jose. That means that a) you don't know what you're talking about and b) you're bending over backwards to "explain" that he didn't really mean what he clearly said, that he really meant something entirely different. You can't say what that might have been, since you weren't there, and you have never seen it, but in spite of that, you know that we're somehow mistaken.
I mean we've simply gotta be, right? After all, that's Richard Stallman we're talking about!
Shameful. I mean that sincerely. You should be ashamed of yourself.
David "Lefty" Schlesinger
2009-07-15 21:08:34
For those who have not had the pleasure of learning the Japanese language, that's read "baka ni tsukeru kusuri wa nai", and it means, "There's no medicine that cures being an idiot."
David "Lefty" Schlesinger
2009-07-15 21:17:29
Well, if you don't count things like postings in which Roy characterizes me in various ways and turns off comments so no one can respond, and if you ignore the cute little red "please pay no attention to this person" advisories that Roy likes to slap on folks who disagree with him, and the regular little slurs and bits of libel in which Roy enjoys indulging, and your regular attempts to steer discussions off their topic into something more convenient to you, and your repeated protestations that you can't interpret anything unless someone posts a video of it, and Roy's and Willy's efforts to vilify people away from commenting, and Roy's regular gross mischaracterizations of what people have said and done, and Roy's outright defamations, from which he refuses to back down until someone makes a credible threat to haul his lying, sorry ass into court and strip him of both this site and every asset he has now or ever hopes to have in the future, not to mention his (and your) effort to attack the messenger by focusing on what computer they post from, and looking for ulterior motives when there are clear and obvious reasons for what people are saying...then sure.
Plenty of "healthy debate". Mm hm.
David "Lefty" Schlesinger
2009-07-15 21:24:01
>> I’m trying to be focused here–not an easy thing in the face of people like Jose who seem to wander all over the map in what passes for “argumentation”
Oh, good. I'd hate to feel that your attention was wandering again. In case you're unsure to what I might be referring, it's your lamentable tendency to suddenly want to talk about nine links on software patents, rather than the claims you made about your so-called "division of labor" when it appeared that the discussion was not favoring you, and your sudden interest in my reading list rather than making the effort to understand the simple and straightforward sense of Stallman's unfunny little "joke".
Just in case I was somehow unclear about that. What you try to do is either deliberate diversion, Jose, or a symptom of some sort of attention deficit disorder. Me, I suspect the former.
Jose_X
2009-07-16 01:25:02
Since returning I have written up some replies to you, but re-reading over them makes it clear that I should calm down (whether you yourself do or don't). I'm reacting negatively more than is smart.
I agree with the main point that people should avoid attacking messengers. I also don't want to end up nitpicking. I can't speak for other people, either.
I understand why Stallman and others get defended, but I think I will get more mileage if I focus on things I can argue more effectively. I can only speak for myself.
Jose_X
2009-07-16 01:49:43
Not at all. I remember your reply. I did not address everything you said. I also don't think you addressed everything I wrote, including why I mentioned the sw patent links.
In any case, division of labor means that people focus on different parts of a problem. IIRC, you (and/or others) had been wondering why developers are not posting against mono, and you criticized those that don't develop as being those that attack mono.
I disagree that FOSS devs generally accept mono, but I wanted to explain why some that might not be writing a lot of software (FOSS) might focus on posting against mono.
I replied to you by stating that not everyone takes the time to post over and over if they are busy writing code or managing a project. I linked to this http://www.linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2009-06-12-010-35-OS-CY-DV-0035 . There are many more people that post, eg, on Linux Today who have developed software (FOSS or otherwise, some for many decades) or are doing so or support FOSS in various ways and distrust or dislike mono significantly. [You can add me to that list if you want.] It does seem that many that accept mono, accept Microsoft to a modest degree. Many people reject mono as they reject Microsoft. Monopolysoft's rap sheet is long. I can tell you that I would be writing more software today if I didn't think communicating some of these issues was important enough for me to take all the time I take doing so. In doing this, I know that others can focus on writing software instead when they might otherwise want to be a little more vocal. Also, I sometimes see developers trying to make those with less experience appear to be clueless and incompetent because they might not follow some discussion or other.
I think there are people that support Linux (aren't paid by Microsoft, etc) but don't want the free stuff to be so squeaky clean. There are also others that don't care or think about or know much about patents. There are those that probably disapprove but watch what they say since they might think it would have a negative impact on their employability. There are those that are getting support from Microsoft. And there might be those that simply sympathize with one cause of the other for whatever reason (and there could be many).
>> and your sudden interest in my reading list rather than making the effort to understand the simple and straightforward sense of Stallman’s unfunny little “joke”.
No I understand it might be an unfunny joke, but I don't take your word on it. Perhaps if you quote (or better show a video of) the entire process, I could give a better personal opinion. In any case, I felt the need to point out that you taking Stallman literally likely meant you had missed something.
As to my interest in your reading list, if you try and quote what I said, I think it will be that much clearer that you are trying to stretch anything you can to try and get points or something.
Jose_X
2009-07-16 02:07:53
>> Well, if you don’t count things like postings in which Roy characterizes me in various ways and turns off comments so no one can respond,
I did notice that comments were closed in a few blogs pieces. That certainly hasn't stopped those conversations from occurring elsewhere [this is your cue to bring up Jimmi]. And we are talking about a tiny number here, and which does not include the current topic since this thread is clearly open for comments and you have had much to say.
>> and if you ignore the cute little red “please pay no attention to this person” advisories that Roy likes to slap on folks who disagree with him,
I haven't seen that in a while (or applied to too many people). I haven't seen it on your comments.
>> and the regular little slurs and bits of libel in which Roy enjoys indulging,
This happens in each direction. Plus, what someone else says doesn't keep you from saying your thing, or from getting others to reply to you and even to agree with you.
>> and your regular attempts to steer discussions off their topic into something more convenient to you,
Well, I think you will be accused of this yourself. In any case, absent links or quotes, people will just have to go back and judge for themselves how much we have all been off topic.
>> and your repeated protestations that you can’t interpret anything unless someone posts a video of it,
Video is the best alternative to not having been there, or no?
Well, do you at least have a transcript? It might be difficult to judge various forms of humor from a transcript if the delivery involve physical and unstated cues.
>> and Roy’s and Willy’s efforts to vilify people away from commenting, and Roy’s regular gross mischaracterizations of what people have said and done, and Roy’s outright defamations, from which he refuses to back down until someone makes a credible threat to haul his lying, sorry ass into court and strip him of both this site and every asset he has now or ever hopes to have in the future,
I don't see how what someone else says keeps you from replying and having your say?
>> not to mention his (and your) effort to attack the messenger by focusing on what computer they post from,
Yes, I mentioned that you using a Mac might suggest something about your views.
That was wrong of me.
>> and looking for ulterior motives when there are clear and obvious reasons for what people are saying…then sure.
Maybe my interpretation was different.
Like I said a short bit ago. I want to cool down.
Despite this long reply arguing that debate here is possible and done quite a bit. I understand that taking a combative, suspicious, distrusting, etc, approach can hurt the health of the debate.
I think I have reacted to you several times in the past weeks at a time when you appeared to be fuming. [yes, yes.. because of Roy+friends this or that]
I am reminded of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hatfield-McCoy_feud
David "Lefty" Schlesinger
2009-07-16 13:38:10
Here's a transcript of the section in question: "...we also have the cult of the virgin of emacs. The virgin of emacs is any female who has not yet learned how to use emacs. And in the church of emacs we believe that taking her emacs virginity away is a blessed act."
He worded it slightly differently at GCDS, it was a "woman who has not yet learned to use EMACS" and "...it is a holy duty in the Church of EMACS to relieve her of that virginity", but the meaning, and the offensiveness, is the same.
You've been claiming that there was some "non-literal" interpretation of this that you could only discern with the aid of a video tape and a transcript. Now you've got 'em.
So, interpret that for me. Tell me how those of us who were there somehow failed to understand the deeply nuanced meaning behind what somehow seemed like a pointlessly sexist joke aimed squarely at women.
And if you dodge this or ignore it after giving me the runaround, I will definitely not forget it.
David "Lefty" Schlesinger
2009-07-16 13:41:36
Feel free to apologize to me (and Matthew, and Paul Cutler, and Celeste Lyn Ray, and Andre Klapper and Matt Zimerman and the other folks who substantiated it) any time.
David "Lefty" Schlesinger
2009-07-17 00:08:48
We're talking two sentences, 34 words. What's taking you?
Patrick
2009-07-15 13:37:20
[quote]Don’t like the path Gnome is taking - use KDE or XFCE or something else.[/quote]
That's why a talked about a "fork". I really like Gnome, and if they plan to make it a mono based environment, I think a fork is the way to go.
[quote]Hell you could even start your own project. I’d love to see and object oriented desktop for linux that looks like OS/2. I don’t have the time to get into it.[/quote]
Acctually I already thought about that, but as you, I don't have time to get into it.
[quote]By alternative I mean a lightweight framework that would allow developers to create gui programs and target any platform desired.[/quote]
I'm not an expert in this area, but there aren't a lot of lightweight frameworks already? Isn't the problem just the "propaganda" stuff? Just a thought, as I've said, it's not my area.
Patrick
2009-07-15 13:38:29
Roy Schestowitz
2009-07-15 13:40:27
JohnD
2009-07-15 13:51:03
Roy Schestowitz
2009-07-15 13:59:04
David "Lefty" Schlesinger
2009-07-15 14:05:33
What's your point here?
JohnD
2009-07-15 14:14:34
"Cause for alarm? Not really. It's just a matter of the web assuming a more vital importance to programming, a trend that will continue to grow. It will, however, take a very long time to make your Java or C skills irrelevant."
The article also fails to mention where the development is being done i.e. what platform. Also if you look at the top 4 Java, C, VB, C++ you'll notice that 2-4 hold 36% to Java's 21%. And back to my question - what IDEs on what platforms are being used? I'm betting that most are using Windows as the host and the target for their apps. As I've said before it makes sense to keep the tools simple and familiar if you want people to switch to what you're offering.
Roy Schestowitz
2009-07-15 14:18:43
Roy Schestowitz
2009-07-15 14:20:37
JohnD
2009-07-15 14:23:43
"Observe that the TIOBE index is not about the best programming language or the language in which most lines of code have been written."
And if you read the TIOBE definition: http://www.tiobe.com/index.php/content/paperinfo/tpci/tpci_definition.htm You'll find that it's based on search engine hits: "The ratings are calculated by counting hits of the most popular search engines" This doesn't take into account the "why" behind the search. The results could be a factor of people having more difficulty learning/using Java than other languages. Hardly a "verifiable" fact you're presenting.
Roy Schestowitz
2009-07-15 14:26:08
David "Lefty" Schlesinger
2009-07-15 14:27:11
Wow. Roy misstated a "fact" to suit his own agenda?
Surely, you jest.
—Eddie Murphy as "Billie Ray Valentine" in Trading Places
eet
2009-07-15 14:28:42
David "Lefty" Schlesinger
2009-07-15 14:28:43
Oh, is that what you imagined you were doing?
JohnD
2009-07-15 14:31:41
David "Lefty" Schlesinger
2009-07-15 14:37:50
Pretty bold words from a man who's reduced to using the computers from which people happen to be posting to attempt to discredit what they say.
JohnD
2009-07-15 14:42:28
eet
2009-07-15 14:46:36
Perhaps I should set up a website where people can visibly distance themselves from Roy. I know that I don't want to be thrown in with him just because he happens to be Linux user, too.
David "Lefty" Schlesinger
2009-07-15 14:47:06
Well, you can't say I didn't try to warn you about bringing up actual facts that weren't supportive of the "case" Roy's trying to make, John. Because that's what "trolling" is.
Right?
JohnD
2009-07-15 15:24:26
Mikko
2009-07-15 16:58:00
i don't need mono
Needs Sunlight
2009-07-15 12:57:30
David "Lefty" Schlesinger
2009-07-15 13:02:16
Right. That's why the feature set of gnote is a trailing copy of the feature set of Tomboy.
asfjkas
2009-07-15 13:03:35
In other words, you are comparing apples to oranges (nothing new from the BoycottNovell zealots).
David "Lefty" Schlesinger
2009-07-15 15:24:00
It is ironic that Gnote’s developer originally came from Novell because Novell promotes Mono inside GNOME and Tomboy has served Novell well (it even employs Tomboy’s developer).
But on the other
It can be added that Nat Friedman came from Microsoft. Many people do not know this.
It's nice that you're so unbothered by little things like "internal consistency", Roy. Especially since you're willing to interpret things like "worked for Apple eight years ago" or "came from Microsoft" as being prima facie evidence of being some sort of shill or mole attempting to undermine the FLOSS community.
Maybe Hub is using gnote as some sort of clever scheme to actually promote Mono! After all, he came from Novell!
AH
2009-07-15 16:52:21
"Nat Friedman came from Microsoft" actually means "Nat Friedman did a short internship at Microsoft". And don't dare mention that after Nat left Microsoft he went to work on GNU Rope, an optimization system for gcc.
Clearly all that Microsoft brainwashing worked.
David "Lefty" Schlesinger
2009-07-15 16:56:07
David Gerard
2009-07-15 18:35:56
Someone's managing by statistics.
twitter
2009-07-15 19:24:31
David "Lefty" Schlesinger
2009-07-15 19:43:56
For the record, I have never been employed by Microsoft, I've never interviewed there, I've never had any interest in working there, I have never received anything from Microsoft for which I didn't pay retail prices (with the sole exception of a "Port 25" t-shirt I got at some conference), and I've never accepted so much as a plugged nickel from Microsoft for anything at all.
My opinions are entirely my own. Feel free to trot out the evidence to support your allegations, Willy. You're just "attacking the messenger" because you don't like the message, the same as Roy. And you're no better at it than he is. So stop being such a twit, Willy.
Twit Lefty
2009-07-15 20:47:44
David "Lefty" Schlesinger
2009-07-15 21:49:00
Changing the name's a cute touch. Evidently I'm starting to get to you. Sadly for you, that sort of thing stopped bothering me when I got into second grade and became older than you.
twitter
2009-07-17 15:29:56
David "Lefty" Schlesinger
2009-07-17 15:59:59
You can say that I'm nine feet tall, with horns, fangs and a tail, and that still doesn't make it so. Hasn't stopped you before, though. Since you say a lot of things, Willy, and haven't got the slightest substantiation for any of 'em, people don't actually pay a whole lot of attention to what you say.
I can and will say that your are here to abuse and harass rather than discuss or inform and that there’s nothing honest about you.
Prove it. Demonstrate that I've told a lie. I've demonstrated over and over and over that Roy has. You seem pretty sure of yourself here, WIlly, show your work.
It is a shame that you spend so much of your time like that.
Pretty bold words from a guy who spends his existence propagating links from this site onto Digg and Reddit all day long. At least I can write. And read.
Roy Schestowitz
2009-07-15 19:47:59
By the very definition of the word "troll", he is a TROLL, not a GNOME. What he does in this site objectively qualifies as "trolling". He does not even like the GPL and he uses a Mac, but that's not the point. He is already taking up a lot of space. By managing to receive replies (he mostly just replies to himself endlessly until he provokes), he's also taking up other people's time, so they comment on people and off-topic things rather than offer insights that matter. It also noisifies pages.
I recommend just ignoring the trolls. They distract and derail discussions.
David "Lefty" Schlesinger
2009-07-15 23:45:06
Actually, I'm here to keep you honest, Roy. And believe me, that's no small task.
By the very definition of the word “troll”, he is a TROLL, not a GNOME.
Really? I'd say you'd get close to 100% disagreement on that from folks actually involved in GNOME (which you, of course, are not).
I'd like to see that definition. Trot it on out, Roy. Show your work.
David "Lefty" Schlesinger
2009-07-16 06:17:24
David "Lefty" Schlesinger
2009-07-17 16:03:14
troll (n.): Any person who expresses opinions contrary to Roy's, especially when they have the wherewithal to expose Roy's lies, shred his fabricated "points" into confetti and generally make it clear to any rational onlooker that Roy's a lying sack of excrement, who's about as thick as two planks and as sharp as a sack of hammers.
That sound about right?
Roy Schestowitz
2009-07-15 19:34:26
That's just Schlesinger abusing this site to publicise himself.
David "Lefty" Schlesinger
2009-07-15 19:46:46
So, if I'm getting "publicity" out of this, you have absolutely no one to blame but yourself.
Ever hear the old Spanish proverb? "God says, 'Take whatever you want. And pay for it.'"
David "Lefty" Schlesinger
2009-07-15 19:58:30
My comments are responsive (as contrasted with WIlly's, which tend to be nothing more than a mass of incoherent name-calling and other slurs); I respond to questions; I'm not unreasonably rude (although I admittedly get impatient with some of the deliberate obtuseness); and I stick to an on-topic point.
So, what's your gripe? You have this site, which (purportedly, anyway) contains "news stories" and "analysis". You offer (when it suits you, anyway) the facility to comment. So, I'm commenting. Seems to me that I'm just using the site the way it was designed to be used.
You've charged me with "gaming the ratings", without substantiation.
You've accused me of "attacking Jose", without substantiation.
I think you're "abusing this site", Roy. And I think Shane might well agree with me, rather than with you.
Wanna ask him?
Shane Coyle
2009-07-15 21:08:58
Frankly, I agree with you more often than not, and value the contributions you make to the conversations.
All I ever wanted was open discourse and a quest for facts (I won't go so far as to say truth). I removed myself from editorial (and, subsequently ownership/hosting) duties because I was frustrated with the direction the site and community has been headed, that is true. I also couldn't afford the time or money to do it properly, to be honest, and the site and it's 'community' deserved better accommodations.
Conversations here are generally more important and enlightening than posts (and that's not a slight on Roy, I consider it the same for anything I ever wrote here, I very much believe in the distributed development model and tried to look at comments as bug reports for my posts).
Which is why I am a bit concerned about a pattern of "comments disabled" (or, is it just me? FF3.5, Slax 6.1.1) in regards to the past few articles about a Mr Wong - I think it's important to let the man defend himself, especially since the N.Y. Attorney General just recently smacked a company for "Astroturfing", making such accusations much weightier (and potentially injurious) in my mind.
With great readership comes great responsibility, or something like that.
...
In Roy's defense (of an earlier comment, slightly off topic but I don't recall where I saw it in akgregator - there are so many posts), he never deleted comments that I am aware of during my time 'behind the scenes' ('EEET' did have some comments that were in the spam queue for quite a while, I recall releasing those during one of my guest returns while Roy was on holiday or something), I can find the post if need be... wasn't too long ago, probably my last set of postings here.
Roy Schestowitz
2009-07-15 21:36:04
It's not mine. The site is now run on a server of someone who donated it (after the DDOS attacks had begun) and I could pass it back to you any time if it serves the goals better.
Just as a reminder, Schlesinger came here after he had libeled me.
You wrongly thought (or were led to believe) that we had something to do with the protests in India. And you also thought someone was arrested. Neither claim is true.
Be aware that there are constant attempts to characterise this Web site as zealous/dangerous/extreme and its contributors as k00ks. Ask PJ what it would be like had she not censored comments in Groklaw. We are actually more open and tolerant than Groklaw.
If my time to serve 'expires' as well, I shall pass it on too. I really appreciate what you do by allowing ownerships to pass like GPL-licensed code (to one who can code most quickly given the current circumstances)... and you can have it back any time. :-)
Indeed. But the crass trolls curse and attack fellow commenters (I can take the insults, but I feel helpless when others who can't take them are insulted, only to retreat). That is not helpful. See the new comment from guy lafleur (at the bottom).
Indeed.
It was about heckling from the regular trolls. It's not about Mr Wong, whose comments I was interested in. He spoke in another thread about it.
I never ever deleted comments unless it was about viagra, casino, porn and the rest of the spam varieties.
David "Lefty" Schlesinger
2009-07-15 21:36:16
Frankly, I agree with you more often than not, and value the contributions you make to the conversations.
Appreciated. Clearly Roy does not share this feeling, since he's now apparently hunting around for ways to "censor" me without actually, exactly censoring me. Per se.
I removed myself from editorial (and, subsequently ownership/hosting) duties because I was frustrated with the direction the site and community has been headed, that is true.
Heck, I can see why you'd be frustrated, since it appears that Roy has managed to turn the place into the exact opposite of what you say you hoped it would be.
Which is why I am a bit concerned about a pattern of "comments disabled" (or, is it just me? FF3.5, Slax 6.1.1) in regards to the past few articles about a Mr Wong...
No, it's most definitely not just you. Roy is certainly deliberately disabling comments on selected entries in order to stifle discussion of them and to deny the people he's defaming a place to respond. It's reprehensible behavior. If there was a law against impersonating a journalist, he'd be behind bars.
David "Lefty" Schlesinger
2009-07-15 21:43:58
Untrue, Roy. I came here, as you well know, once it became apparent that--having assured me to my face that you "didn't know" Mark Fink and that you thought his activites were "disgusting"--I came into possession of a digitally signed email from you to Fink saying "I liked what you do."
That's two-faced, Roy. That's duplicitous. I told you how angry that makes me. I told you that you wouldn't like me when I was angry, either.
I was right, wasn't I? See? That's the difference between you and me, Roy: when I tell you something, you can rely on it.
But the crass trolls curse and attack fellow commenters...
Debate is not attack, Roy. I haven't "cursed" anyone. I'm still waiting, a full day later, for you to show me these "attacks" on Jose you've been whimpering about.
It was about heckling from the regular trolls. It’s not about Mr Wong, whose comments I was interested in.
Two words, Roy: "horse" and "crap". I guess you weren't interested in my comments on being called a troll in a front page entry. Or maybe you just figured I'd "comment elsewhere", too.
So I am. Deal with it, Mr. "Journalist".
eet
2009-07-15 21:59:59
David "Lefty" Schlesinger
2009-07-15 23:48:03
Oh, the humanity!
David "Lefty" Schlesinger
2009-07-15 20:08:28
Well, that's inaccurate, but if "that's not the point", why bring it up at all? Maybe it's because you're an untrustworthy fellow who's been stretching the truth so far for so long that you can't even reliably distinguish the facts of the matter from the lies you tell, and because your level of self-esteem is so low that you can't manage to take any disagreement, no matter how reasoned or reasonable, as anything other than some sort of personal affront...
But that's not the point.
He is already taking up a lot of space.
Bill me, Roy.
...he’s also taking up other people’s time, so they comment on people and off-topic things rather than offer insights that matter.
Waaaah! Waaaaaaaaah! Somebody, call the waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah-mbulance!
And did someone post an "insight that mattered" on this site? Gee, you oughta have a party, or send out a press release or something. That's gotta be some sort of an event.
I guess Roy only wants comments from people who agree with him. Maybe you should make it a by-invitation-only site, Roy. That'll save folks the trouble of reading it, and spare you the psychic pain of having to deal with reasoned disagreement and difficult questions.
(On the subject of difficult questions, I'm still waiting for you to substantiate all those "attacks" to which you claim I've been subjecting poor, aimless Jose....)
David "Lefty" Schlesinger
2009-07-15 20:31:54
No, you "don't have the data". You werent there. I've pointed you in the direction of a good number of people who were there, and who support what I've said. There are more of them in the comments to my blog posting. But none of that matters to Jose: the only reason all of these people are pretending to be offended is because Stallman doesn't like Mono, or Stallman doesn't like Tivo, or I used to work for Apple, or use a Mac.
You frankly are sounding increasingly delusional here.
As for Roy:
The post was about Mono and Moonlight. Watch how the whole discussion got derailed.
Hey, I've been responding to what's in there and what other commenters have been saying. I responded to a comment on Banshee by pointing out that you have a vested interest in saying nothing positive about Banshee. I replied to your free-floating suggestion, also in the article, that the criticism of Stallman was really about his views on Mono, which I've addressed already. Beyond that, I've been responding to what other posters, you included, have written. If that proves inconvenient for you, maybe you need to write better. Or think better.
That's what happens on discussion sites, Roy: topics drift. I guess you could moderate the entire place if that doesn't suit your fancy.
Sorry For The Inconvenience.
eet
2009-07-15 21:37:43
David "Lefty" Schlesinger
2009-07-15 21:52:20
guy lafleur
2009-07-15 20:32:38
i know roy doesnt want to censor anyone but to make it more enjoyable to those that want to use the comments, there should be a way to block out the trolls that way if you want to read and debate you can and those of us that dont cant just skip them altogether. i enjoy a good debate but not watching obsessive/compulsive types go on and on and on. I knew once you removed those complicated math questions verifications that the trolling would go up and I was right.
I've read The Reg article from where “I’d like to see Gnome applications written in .NET in version 4.0 - no, version 3.0. But Gnome 4.0 should be based on .NET.” comes from and that's not a generalization but a direct quote it seems. Either the reporter lied or Icaza did say it. Some of us might have come late to this storyline and may not be aware how deep Icaza's love for Redmond runs. Sure, you read Varghese posts about this kind of stuff but many things can be left for interpretation. This quote sure doesnt.
Roy Schestowitz
2009-07-15 20:47:10
Is there a WordPress extension that 'folds' comments?
eet
2009-07-15 21:32:48
But we all know: Who doesn't agree with Mr Schestowitz is a troll by definition. Roy, you are SO afraid of people that challengge you to a serious discussion that you simply flee, flee, flee! Flight, wriggling, defamation! That is what you know, and nothing else.
Yeah, we should really be proud to have you in our midst, our fellow Linux user! Bah! You make me sick, honestly.
David "Lefty" Schlesinger
2009-07-15 23:15:44
Love that commitment to the truth, Roy! It seems you've never met a principle that you couldn't cave in on.
David "Lefty" Schlesinger
2009-07-15 23:37:36
So....why are you reading 'em, Guy? Feeling obsessed? Compelled, perhaps?
Maybe you've lost volitional control over your own actions or someone's holding a gun to your head.
David "Lefty" Schlesinger
2009-07-15 22:09:22
Do you think it's an act of responsible journalism, in keeping with the commitment you made, to have a front page entry with comments disabled, identifying me as a "troll" because I happen to be using a Mac at the moment?
As I pointed out, if you made that retraction and apology in bad faith--as is increasingly appearing to be the case--then any "understanding" or "accommodation" we might have arrived at is null and void, and I won't feel bound by it. I'll reiterate the fair warning that making a pretense of a retraction and apology in bad faith over something which you admitted was defamatory will count heavily against you should this situation ever happen to arrive before a judge.
My next actions depend on your response. Refusal to answer constitutes a response, just so we're clear on that.
David "Lefty" Schlesinger
2009-07-16 06:19:52
Will
2009-07-15 22:31:58
David "Lefty" Schlesinger
2009-07-15 23:13:18
Mark is a Fink
2009-07-15 22:41:48
David "Lefty" Schlesinger
2009-07-15 23:10:23
Even if Shane could work out some sort of "agreement" (although I increasingly see no basis for such), I don't feel I could possibly trust Roy to keep up his end of the bargain. He's failed to be a "straight shooter" so many times that his "trust account" with me is deep into the red.
Roy Schestowitz
2009-07-15 23:16:09
I think that's the goal.
David "Lefty" Schlesinger
2009-07-15 23:33:36
If you want to get "insults and invective" off the site, ban Willy. At least with me, you're getting jokes (funny ones, not ones about "EMACS virgins"), erudition, useful quotes from great works, not to mention coherent thinking, something you're sorely in need of around here.
David Gerard
2009-07-15 23:01:28
Roy, I suggest a special David-and-eet-free discussion of Mono and Moonlight.
David "Lefty" Schlesinger
2009-07-15 23:11:38
Are you feeling the need to be protected from me, David?
Roy Schestowitz
2009-07-15 23:15:11
His angry attitude puts readers off, so I don't feed it. Maybe he'll get bored.
David "Lefty" Schlesinger
2009-07-15 23:59:14
I'll tell you an interesting fact about me: I can honestly say that I don't believe I've ever been bored, to the very best of my recollection, anyway, in my entire life. I attribute this to my intelligence, coupled with my deep curiosity about anything that catches my fancy. There's always something to do.
And, by the way, I'm not especially "angry" other than in an abstract sort of way. I'm quite a happy person, as I mentioned to Willy when he (foolishly) suggested I needed to go out and make some friends. If you think I'm sitting here fuming over "that lying bastard Schestowitz", I'm afraid that I have to disappoint you. Mostly, I'm laughing my ass off at your current "plight",
David "Lefty" Schlesinger
2009-07-16 00:11:35
I'll tell you an interesting fact about me: I can honestly say that I don't believe I've ever been bored, to the very best of my recollection, anyway, in my entire life. I attribute this to my intelligence, coupled with my deep curiosity about anything that catches my fancy. There's always something to do.
And, by the way, I'm not especially "angry" other than in an abstract sort of way. I'm quite a happy person, as I mentioned to Willy when he (foolishly) suggested I needed to go out and make some friends. If you think I'm sitting here fuming over "that lying bastard Schestowitz", I'm afraid that I have to disappoint you. Mostly, I'm laughing my ass off at your current plight, a situation for which--allow me to remind you yet again--you have absolutely no one to blame other than yourself.
You may recall that you and I exchanged several emails in which I was quite friendly--right up until the point I got hold of your email to Fink, at which point I told you that this was an exceedingly unfortunate move on your part, one you would certainly come to regret. Remember that?
I;m an honest and a straightforward person, Roy. I don't have the energy to be duplicitous, it's too much work and too much trouble to keep track of. As such, I deeply dislike personal dishonesty, which is what you've have consistently and unfailingly shown to me. Shall I enumerate?
1. Your claim that you "didn't know Mark Fink", when it was clear that you'd heard of him, discussed him, exchanged comments with him, and offered to let him edit a page. 2. Your claim of "disgust" with Fink's actions, which was belied by your email where you said that you "liked" the very actions which you told me disgusted you. 3. Your repeated attempts to recast the event to make you look better. "Lefty told me to write Fink." "No, I didn't, check the comments" "Well, okay, maybe he didn't tell me, but what was I to do?" 4. Your defamation of me. 5. The pulling-teeth-like lengths to which I was obligated to go to get you to back down from that defamation. 6. Your subsequent posting which blamed the defamationn on "some readers", rather than owning up to your own responsibility. 7. My having to dictate an appropriate retraction and apology to you. 8. Your extremely rapid burial of that retraction, in defiance of my expressed conditions. 9. Your rapid return to defaming me almost immediately, in spite of your promise to endeavor not to repeat such behavior in the future.
Now, this isn't even an exhaustive list, Roy. Want to try to tell everyone how I'm lying about all of these things, and you're entirely blameless?
Mark is a Fink
2009-07-15 23:40:59
The thing that makes me most angry about all of this is that someone calling themself "Mark Fink" succeeded beyond his wildest dreams in executing a "let's you and him fight while I cut and run" ruse. He's by far the most reprehensible character of anyone who posts here and he must be having a good laugh at all of this if he is watching it.
David "Lefty" Schlesinger
2009-07-15 23:50:23
That's a really nice theory, all except for the digitally signed email from Roy to Mark approving of and encouraging his activities.
aeshna23
2009-07-16 00:30:41
David "Lefty" Schlesinger
2009-07-16 00:39:25
Kiss my gluteus maximus, pal.
Roy wrote, and I quote, verbatim:
(Emphasis mine, all mine.) If he wasn't encouraging him, why the directives to "distance yourself from the site" and "Make it look like a personal gripe"?
That clearly shows Roy's interest in directing Mark's future activities, and not his past ones.
David "Lefty" Schlesinger
2009-07-16 00:42:17
Like I said, I get a little tired of having my honesty challenged by demonstrable liars, not to mention folks who can type but apparently not read.
jocaferro
2009-07-16 00:13:48
[Lefty]
It's in your blog. Today is...
David "Lefty" Schlesinger
2009-07-16 00:22:55
I'm frankly so disgusted with what I see as systemic dishonesty on this site, that I frankly suspect that you'd post something claiming it was false just to muddy the waters at this point. And then we could waste time arguing over that.
So, tough, no. I've decided I am unwilling to waste my own server space to indulge you. Particularly since Roy keeps referring to this imaginary "first email" he sent to Fink wherein he supposedly upbraided him mightily (before turning right around to say "I liked what you do". He's never produced that, in spite of my repeated challenges to him to do so.
I'm frankly getting a little tired of having my honesty repeatedly challenged around here by a bunch of demonstrable liars. So, stuff it.
Don't like it? Write the President of the Internet.
JohnD
2009-07-16 00:25:49
David "Lefty" Schlesinger
2009-07-16 00:32:50
JohnD
2009-07-16 00:38:34
jocaferro
2009-07-17 02:44:10
First your comment is more of the same. This was your first full comment:
So, 99% of your previous comment was just garbage. More of the same.
What's new? "demonstrable liars" From your own words, on June 21, you made a promise. Now you break that promise. Here, someone who breaks a promise is a liar, not the one who remember that promise! And, "a bunch of demonstrable liars"? Are you including me in that bunch? Nice try but wrong door. That's really interesting coming from someone who has just broken a promise!
First, no it's not for me but for someone you already promised! A promise is a promise! Is you the guy talking about honesty? Please don't indulge me. Simply, fulfill your promise!
Second, your words were "post the message someplace". So, not in your beloved server space! Am I asking you to post the message in your server? Readind the profile in your blog I'm sure you know where to find some free places to publish that message. If you don't know maybe I can help - I have 1 TB free in my server. Do you think that's enough? Or you can ask Mr. "President of the Internet"...
Nice. Why are you so nervous facing your own words or facing your own promise!? Did I put a gun against your head? Am I remembering something you didn't want to do? Now I can see you don't. "Dishonesty" and "demonstrable liars" are really right in this context.
It's your suspicion. My suspicion is that you suspect everybody, except yourself. No, Mr. Lefty, the only fact here is that someone ask you something and you said yes. Not now but later. Now, I can see it's not now, nor later but never! Using your own words now I can claim that it was a false promise. But only now! No muddy waters here. Only in your head. This is the true - you really made a false promise. You don't like it? Well, sure you certainty know whom you can write.
More, you said "at this point" and I can't see why not at this point! My comment was really close to this one: Note the "digitally signed". That's not the only one appearing here. There are more. So, what do mean by "at this point"!? "At this point" I can't remember you a promise you made? If not "at this point" can you please inform at which "point" I can remember you? In ten years? No. Now I know - never!
Thank you very much for your attention regarding the answer to my coment
(again) I'm very sorry for my poor knowledgement of the english language. Maybe I misunderstood it and that was some kind of compliment. In this case: - Stuff it you too, Mr Lefty.
aeshna23
2009-07-16 00:18:04
Shane, I don't think you are being rational in saying this to Lefty. I really appreciate what you have done for boycottnovell and I suppose you may hate me for what I suggest, but I hope you won't. There is a tendency by some people to be too nice to their enemies. I know a gay Jew who supports Hamas's position. Yet Hamas kills every Jew and every gay person, even Muslim gays, at every opportunity. The world is not a better place for people being overly generous to the nasty, hateful bullies like Hamas and Lefty.
David "Lefty" Schlesinger
2009-07-16 00:31:16
Shane Coyle
2009-07-16 01:30:49
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, I sometimes agree with "Lefty", sometimes with Roy, occasionally with Twitter, sometimes with Gordon and even with Jo Shields back in the day (before the Fxxx you too post that set me completely off).
As I've said, I'm interested in the discussion, and try to be careful not to fire my arrows over my house and hit my own brother. I mean no disrespect to anyone, and try to appreciate the position of those whom I disagree with, then destroy them with facts or at least further my understanding with questions. ;^ )
I fully consider the possibility that I am utterly and completely wrong about just about everything (yet I suspect I am at least 60/40 correct, and usually I do better than that).
I've never fully conformed to any one 'camp', just how I see things. I try to be fair, in my own mind, and allow others to draw their own conclusions (including you, of course, if you think I've gone 'soft' or been 'co-opted', so be it).
And, I certainly don't hate ya, and maybe you'll convince me you're right (or at least partially sway me...)
(off topic kinda, but ever notice how 'Americans' are all pro-"democracy" until someone we don't like is "elected"?
Got a problem with Hamas? Don't vote for them.
Don't live there? Oh, then stay out of it. Yankees go home.
Then again, if we really did stay out of it, perhaps Hamas wouldn't have ever been elected at all.)
Roy Schestowitz
2009-07-16 01:35:55
Shane Coyle
2009-07-16 01:45:29
aeshna23
2009-07-16 04:05:47
How many gay people are you willing to see murdered, while you can keep this ridiculous moral purity of yours? How many young girls with vaginas cut all to hell? How about when cow shit is then put on those cuts for Allah? And yes this does happen.
There is something more than a little moronic about blaming us in the West for the evil in other lands.
Shane Coyle
2009-07-16 09:51:37
My point was hypocrisy, like folks who condemn the situation re: election protests in Iran as barbaric and call for intervention, so many forget what the 60s and 70s were like here in this paragon of democracy when our government was loosing attack dogs and the national guard on defenseless citizens, including women and children.
That was merely 2 generations or so ago, so let's try to not be so judgmental or high and mighty is my point. Of course, the point is off-topic here, so it's probably just best to leave it as 'we disagree', but respectfully so (I hope).
JohnD
2009-07-16 12:50:38
Roy Schestowitz
2009-07-16 07:26:18
My "Th*nk you" post was intended to be humourous, but it wasn't conveyed well in text only (and thus misinterpreted). My point was that I had been polite towards Jo all along, but he was not. He is temperamental with other people too.
Sabayon User
2009-07-16 20:47:03
I hope it's not "we'll keep it polite" as you used it here.
David "Lefty" Schlesinger
2009-07-16 14:30:15
First off, argumentum ad hominem, so let's get that out of the way.
I guess you think the world would be a better place, if folks like me, who keeping bring up inconvenient things like actual facts, and holes in other people's reasoning would just go away.
It would make it a lot easier, I'll admit, to do things like incorrectly blame and vilify Jimmi Hugh for a Wikipedia edit he didn't make and, when finally backed to the wall on his error, to leave the error and some other libels intact, but to simply change the style to
strikethrough, leaving the lies and defamation completely intact and completely visible to search bots.And no one would complain when Roy defames a couple of professional tech writers by saying that they were "bribed" by Microsoft when they were only lent laptops for a limited time to enable them to write articles on Vista. Which is their job, I might add. (Roy doesn't seem to mind messing with people's jobs, based on the evidence I have, but that's not relevant here, so I won't mention it.)
People would stop whining when Roy talks about his "no censorship" policy, but closes comments on entries he doesn't want discussed, like the recent one in which he stupidly claims--in the face of the wealth of easily discoverable evidence to the contrary--that "I'm not a Linux guy" because I happen to be using a Mac, or when he slaps a nice red "This person is a Microsoft shill" or some similarly editorial snipe on the comments of people he dislikes.
I think he's afraid to try this on me, personally. I'd love to see him slap a nice red "Not a Linux guy, he uses a Mac! He worked for Apple!" line on one of my comments. Wanna go for it, Roy? I double-dog dare you.
JohnD
2009-07-16 00:24:05
Mark is a Fink
2009-07-16 00:32:59
I also notice that he is not answering for his actions. He should be responsible for what he did. My view is that, if Roy were to ask me to trash other people's mailing lists and to take it to the next level if anyone were to challenge me, I would tell him to sod off in no uncertain terms and make his tactics known to anyone who wants to know. If Roy told me to jump in a lake and I drowned, should I blame him? No, I would blame myself for following idiotic advice. If I were Roy and I had sufficient money, I would pursue "Mark Fink" legally and call him to account just as mercilessly as you have pursued Roy on this site. What exactly does that e-mail say? It says "I liked what you do". Is there any indication of exactly what it was that he liked? Was Roy aware that "Mark Fink" was doing such a poor job of "advocacy" that he was actually undermining the site that he purported to promote? Are there any further e-mails or other communications which spell this out? Your interpretation may be right, but it may be that Roy simply liked the fact that "Mark Fink" was pretending to advocate Roy's positions on Mono. The e-mail by itself is ambiguous.
Lefty
2009-07-16 21:02:51
Here, what Roy said, and I quote, verbatim (my emphasis): "I liked what you do, but try to distance yourself from the site to give it credibility. Make it look like a personal gripe while the site keeps it polite."
Note the sections in italics. Roy's not talking about the past. Roy is giving advice to Fink on how to act in the future. That's complicity. That's Roy giving directions to Fink. There's nothing ambiguous about that. That's certainly not the sort of thing you'd say to someone whose activities you found "disgusting" which is what Roy told me he thought of it all before I got hold of that email.
Roy's a bald-faced liar. He told me "I don't know Mark Fink", and then tried to back-pedal after I confronted him claiming that, by "don't know", he really meant "have never met in person".
Jose_X
2009-07-16 02:38:08
If you want to create a track of who did what, perhaps you will want to be extra sensitive about making accusations. Doing this right is tricky, but doing it badly detracts from the positives of the website.
Some of the unhealthiness of the debates here are caused by all sorts of people that don't support the website at all (David recently forgot to mention that and focused solely on BN supporters), but for the sake of the website, BN supporters (and I know this is a general label) should try to be careful.
If someone uses a Mac, rather than judge them knowing so little about their Mac usage, ask them why. If they don't like the GPL, it should come out or they will have to take certain positions that will put them in an awkward position. BUT if they do (eg) like the GPL or Linux or whatever, then shunning them will alienate people and bring retaliation.
Not all people here support the same views. I think "we" should focus on getting people to see threats and avoid alienating them. If you wrong people in any way, you miss some opportunity to more clearly show that there are people ignoring risks and possibly misleading others.
David "Lefty" Schlesinger
2009-07-16 06:27:04
And don't even get me started on apologies and retractions. I've about had it with Roy on that one.
My prediction is that Roy will completely ignore this and persist in precisely the same vein. Anybody giving odds?
JohnD
2009-07-16 12:37:26
Sabayon User
2009-07-16 20:43:20
Then just extrapolate that a bit and bob's your uncle. If they disagree with Roy, then they must hate freedom. And have you stopped beating your wife?
Chips_B_Malroy
2009-07-16 08:35:59
Sad as also everyone has been labeled, named and belittled, including me, who has not even posted here.
And there are some great folks here BTW. Shane who I have never had the pleasure of conversing with, who I understand started this site and turned it over to Roy. I use the name Roy, because its easier to type, less letters, but maybe Shane, you would expect that from an “American.” Yes, were are so evil here that we still use the term “American.” when two continents of countries can rightly claim that distinction. Guilty, on all counts, but what else would we say, that we are Usaimericans? Come on, that name is not part of the English language, is it Shane? The language we inherited from who? We be a lot alike, are we not? Same ancestors, some of us, I think I am. Well at least a few of them. LOL
Let me quote you Shane:
“(off topic kinda, but ever notice how ‘Americans’ are all pro-"democracy" until someone we don’t like is "elected"? Got a problem with Hamas? Don’t vote for them. Don’t live there? Oh, then stay out of it. Yankees go home. Then again, if we really did stay out of it, perhaps Hamas wouldn’t have ever been elected at all.) “ BTW, I do not take offense at your Words Shane, but I think about every other American might. But only because, I think you did not explain it further? I even think you really meant well. Just you did not think any “Americans” (sorry USA) were listening. BTW, I did not vote for Hamas, but maybe you would?
Please, as an “American.” let me respond for my opposed countrymen, and women (that part for you Lefty who seem to have major problems with RMS). We elect out leaders every four years, and dispute what you Shane think, its not all about foreign relations. There are huge domestic issues here that never get on BBC or Google. And it case you use MSN/Live/Bing, I am wasting my time on you, period! Get the point?
So Shane, I think you really don't hate all of us here in the USA. Do you? Maybe your did like W, so is that reason to hate us all? I don't think you do, do you? And how about B, do you hate him, and therefore us too? Mostly we are all just people, and as such, like Rodney said, “we should all get along.” I have nothing against the folks from the British Isles, (hope that was the correct usage) a lot of us are descendants of them, and still think like them. What I would say, is that you did not mean to imply that we Americans from the USA are all evil and such, but worded it wrong in fact? Am I right to say that?
We Americans are not smart politically, not even the best republic actually. The one thing that has kept this republic, of sorts, going, is the fact that we can change leaders (mistakes) every four years. But only every four years, to the one of lesser evil. Hate us for that if you must. We make mistakes here. Can you claim that you do not? Can you claim that Roy was the best pick to take over from you?
One thing I will say about the changing of the Presidents here in the USA. They never throw the old Prez in prison or take them to court. Why is that? They never do these things, no matter the other Party that gets in. When they do, its the end and total war. Have they done that in British Isles? Oh, my, is that what its called there now? Or am I being racist or worse like you? LOL Shane, I was accused of that on MS Watch by MS Shills.
So this site is not what you wanted it to be? Come on, care to elaborate? I would like to know, not that I am giving you a hard time, just that I want to know what your vision was, as I was not here then.
I once again do not think you were trying to suggest that you hated us Americans. But I have heard that a lot from some of you. We Americans are a proud lot, more than we should be. But we try to be fair. Some of us just go off, and that why W got the second term guys, because of people like you.
But enough of this. Shane, I believe you really want to fix this problem between Lefty and Roy. I have been here a short time, and only know Roy some. He has impressed me, with his honesty and knowledge. Could he make a mistake, sure. Not saying he did, as I do not know. What I am saying is even Obama has not dragged W into court so fair for having some of the right intentions. Time to stand up for the guy who tirelessly put in so many hours for so little, and tries so hard. You gave it up, do the right thing.
I do not think anyone can fix the dispute between Lefty and Roy, after reading all this. Personally, I do not care who is right even. Lefty does not want to except the apology from Roy, end of case.
If this was a Linux Distro forum Lefty would be banned. Not because he is wrong (but I think he is very likely) but because this discussion is not adding anything but hated. Lefty is engaging in Name calling at every turn at anyone who disagreeing remotely with him. Not that Lefty may not have a point, its just he cannot forgive. To forgive it devine, I heard that somewhere. Maybe it was the King James or the Koran, LOL. Maybe it was common sense, to forgive. Is this what you were trying to do sir?
Some more points” LEFTY, I went to your site, I was impressed with your credentials there were the ones of any higher raking employee of FOSS, for sure. at least one who draws a paycheck, is that the same as one who is an advocate? Not sure here..
When you attack RMS, for saying the phase “emacs virgins” out of context. And then limit your comments (don't accept any anon) and only have 2 comments on your page. Well, maybe Lefty you could explain why Roy should not censor when its ok for you!!!!
BTW. Roy did not actually censor in my book, just a couple of post there were no comments, the Wong post where he showed up. Comments were allowed. I posted on that comment twice btw.
Wong could not respond the 2nd time when I posted the Federal Traded Commission law on astroturfing. Microsoft shillers read that. Shane, are you in favor of MS running over us? I forgive you for hating us Americans, but if you are pro MS at the expense of Foss, I am your enemy. Forgive me, its late at night here, and I think you Shane are a fair guy. Be nice to your pick, he works hard.
Shane, I have been hard on you, that I know. Because I think you fair and a reasonable person. I could be wrong. I am willingly to go away and fight without you. Is that what you want? But you too will have to fight me. It will take logic and lots of work. Are you up to it? Or did you make a mistake, and should have been behind Roy? I think so.
One last point. eet is clearly a MS shill. But yet nobody disclaims him? Well, Roy and the BN's do. How about you Shane? How about you Lefty? Pick your side now, you be FOSS or Softies.
eet
2009-07-16 09:08:05
Well, it's your paranoia, not mine, you deal with it. In fact, we are operating from Area 51 here, where the government is running a thought-control facility, that works via a backdoor in Windows, in order to prepare humans for the arrival of our Alien overlords.
Roy Schestowitz
2009-07-16 09:14:20
Novell maybe, Not Microsoft.
eet
2009-07-16 09:18:41
Roy, you have very funny ideas about what multi-million-dollar companies consider a worthwhile investment. Your site's impact on Microsoft's business is positive, if anything.
JohnD
2009-07-16 12:30:13
David "Lefty" Schlesinger
2009-07-16 13:21:42
David "Lefty" Schlesinger
2009-07-16 13:19:12
Pal, I am an advocate. I advocate the use of free and open source software in mobile devices. I advocate the use of it to cell phone carriers, to device manufacturers, and to software developers who write applications for phones.
There are distinct differences between what I consider advocacy, and what Roy evidently considers advocacy. For starts, I work for a living. I don't call people names when I advocate, I don't tell lies about folks who don't agree with me, and I don't start screaming and climbing the walls when I'm talking to, say, a cell phone manufacturer who also happens to make Windows Mobile phones. That would be neither productive nor helpful.
When you attack RMS, for saying the phase “emacs virgins” out of context.
No, I didn't.
First, I haven't "attacked RMS". I've attacked his idea of a "joke" and I've expressed dismay at his need to do an unfunny, pointless and divisive comedy routine as part of a keynote speech at a technical conference. If you know of some "context" that I took the phrase "EMACS virgins" out of that makes the whole thing just fine (and this is not difference from Jose's mythical "non-literal interpretation", trot it out. You weren't there, Chips. I was. Matthew Garrett was. Celeste Paul Lyn was. Paul Cutler was. Matt Zimmerman was. Andre Klapper was. They all heard exactly the same thing I heard, and they all wrote in their blogs about it.
And then limit your comments (don’t accept any anon) and only have 2 comments on your page.
What on earth are you talking about? The first entry on RMS has about 70 comments. The one with my email exchange with him has close to 300.
I've explained why I've turned off anonymous commenting and why I'm moderating comments. Read the blog entry. Read the anonymous comments which are pretty horrifying.
Well, maybe Lefty you could explain why Roy should not censor when its ok for you!!!!
Okay, pay real close attention here: the reason that it's okay for me to moderate comments and reject anonymous ones in my blog is that it's my blog. If Roy wants to "censor" comments, as you put it (and you should really look up the word "censor"), he can do what he likes. However, if he says he's not censoring comments, but then doesn't allow people to comment on particular entries, or adds his little warnings and observations to their comments, then he's being a hypocrite.
How about you Lefty?
I don't know that he's a "MS shill". All I know is the comments he makes. He makes more sense that Roy does a lot of the time, and he plays by fairer rules in my book. You folks have a horrible habit of attacking the messenger around here rather than dealing with the message. If someone disagrees with you, no matter how reasoned they are, now matter how good the points they make are, they're a "Microsoft shill", and the discussion turns into name-calling. Roy's tried to pull this on me, based on the fact that I use a Mac for a lot of my posting. It's a deplorable, intellectually lazy habit.
Pick your side now, you be FOSS or Softies.
Sorry, I'm not in your little "war" here, and I don't have to pick anything. My credentials, which you've looked at, and my activities, speak for themselves. If you want to decide that I'm a "Softie" (I mean, really, you've got to be kidding me), have at it. Tell folks. You'll look pretty foolish, but that's your worry not mine.
I get a bit vexed when someone who wouldn't know the truth if it tore off his ears (someone like Roy, say) who has never participated in a single community event in his entire life, who doesn't actually know any of the important folks working on the software he's playing so dirty to "protect" and who does nothing more productive for the community that what he calls advocacy tries to tell me which side I'm on.
Chips_B_Malroy
2009-07-16 20:36:28
First of all let me apologize if my post came across too strongly last night. It was very late here, and writing the comment cut deeply into my sleep time. Therefore my thinking, and writing was not at its best. Still, I would like a response if you would about what you had to say about us “Americans,” if you would be so kind.
@Shane and Lefty:
While my comment was mainly for Shane, I did make the mistake of asking Lefty a question in the comment, which opened this up. Therefore I will respond.
First of all, both of you are important in the World of FOSS. Shane as the founder of BN, truly an important site and source of information. Lefty seems somewhat important, but I only know what little from his link that he gave, maybe he could enlighten us more? Myself, I would say that I am not important in the world of FOSS, or even less than that. At best I am just a minor foot soldier in the world of computers. I used to and still do to some degree, work on (fix), build, and clean out the malware in (windows) computers. And yes, in many small, very small by your standards I would think, I too am an “Advocate” for GNU/Linux. I do nothing even remotely as grand as what you two guys do. I am not a member of BN, but do post comments here and have been in the IRC several times. What I have to say, should not, is not, a reflection on BN or Roy, or Shane, or anyone else but my opinion.
@Lefty,
Isn't it time to let the flames die down? The fact that Roy has admitted a mistake, but still you keep posting looking for a “pound of flesh” (for a better phase). It least this is how it seem to me, that you lack the quality to forgive. That you are vexed is an understatement, quote:
“I get a bit vexed when someone who wouldn’t know the truth if it tore off his ears (someone like Roy, say) who has never participated in a single community event in his entire life, who doesn’t actually know any of the important folks working on the software he’s playing so dirty to “protect” and who does nothing more productive for the community that what he calls advocacy tries to tell me which side I’m on. “ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Vexed is not the word I would used, how about mad as heck. It shows in all your posts BTW, while Roy comes across as cool, calm, and reasoning. Also aligning yourself with eet doesn't do much for you. I you share his thoughts, well, just think about that. Lefty, I do not mean offense, its just the tone of your posts, just look at what I quoted from you. You demean Roy for his “advocacy,” as if that has no importance at all, compared to what you do. I respectfully disagree. We need everyone in FOSS, including the advocates. PJ and Roy are needed just as much as any others. BTW, did I tell you that I consider myself to be an very very minor advocate for GNU/Linux, and as such, wonder if you look down upon advocates, or perhaps I read too much into that quote of yours?
Some other important “advocates” of GNU/Linux would be RMS, the founder of the GNU operating system. The “emacs virgin” is what I got off your website Lefty. So it comes down to perhaps the Webster's definition of what the word “virgin” means in American English, as to your crusade against RMS. For Shane in English English (real English) the different meanings might be different. We “Americans” do use slang, and multiple meanings for the same words. While I could see maybe why you asked him about it, its was perhaps not the best choice of words, but you would not let it drop after you got a satisfactory answer. Virgin means many things, example, “Virgin Olive Oil,” hope that does not offend you Lefty? As I see the RMS statement about “emacs virgins,” to means those who are newbies to emacs or know nothing about it. RMS clearly did not want to answer a bunch of questions from beginners. His time is a little more valuable than mine or perhaps yours Lefty, even though you are important, I think. Perhaps you could tell us more on how important you really are in the scheme of things, I for one would truly be interested.
Another “advocate” (even though maybe Lefty looks down on advocates? Not sure if he does or not) is Mark Shuttleworth. He founded Ubuntu and more, he puts his money behind promoting Linux. In some ways even Steve Ballmer is an “advocate,” as he was and is the chief salesman for MS. Being an advocate, is selling what you believe in Lefty.
Lefty, GNU/Linux will go on without people like you or I, no matter how “important” or not important we think we are. Someone will replace us, its that simple. However, unlike you, I value the work of PJ and Roy, as they are some of the few that do this type of work.
Lefty, I hope you would claim down and stop all the flames. I do wonder about which “side” you are on though. Fine you reject the sides of MS and GNU, that's ok. But from what I have read of what you say, I wonder if the only side you are on is your own side.
joo
2009-07-16 21:04:35
Let's simply your comment:
"Leeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeave Rooooooooooooooooooooooooooooy Alooooooooooooooooone!"
David "Lefty" Schlesinger
2009-07-16 22:21:22
Did you actually read my comment? Are you having a hard time understanding it? You try to slap your silly little black and white labels on me, and I try to give you a sense of what the real world of FLOSS development is like--since you people literally haven't got the slightest idea, because you don't code, you don't document, you don't file bugs, you don't localize, you don't do art, you don't go to the conferences I mentioned, and you seem not to know any of the folks you talk about, positively and negatively, like Miguel de Icaza or Hubert Figuiere.
You talk about "advocating". What does that mean? Publishing a web site that everyone in the real FLOSS community regards as, at best, a bad joke? While there are certainly differences of opinion about Mono in the community, no one cites or mentions this site. They'd be laughed at if they did. I'm sorry to have to tell you that your advocacy is not taken with any degree of seriousness by the folks you claim you're advocating to.
Roy wants Mono out of Ubuntu. Do you think the way to get Mono out of Ubuntu is to write articles claiming that you're being oppressed, that Canonical is corrupt, and that no one will listen to your prophecies of doom? Or to disrupt technical mailing lists with misdirected flames?
This is "advocacy".
Or do you run for one of the open seats on the Ubuntu Technical Board (nominations are open until the 28th, maybe you should nominate Roy, folks'd get a good laugh out of that) which actually has the charter to decide what goes into Ubuntu?
This is "community".
Are you not getting this for some reason?
Lefty
2009-07-16 20:54:53
I'm on the side of the people who, instead of whinily demanding that Ubuntu drop Mono, actually go out and run for a seat on the Ubunutu Technical Board and get involved and change things.
I'm on the side of the people who get together at conferences like FOSDEM, GUADEC, LinuxTag and the many, many other community events.
I'm against people who lie to suit their ends. I'm against people who think what they want is so important that rather than getting involved, they disrupt mailing lists, derail important discussion, defame anyone who disagrees with them and, in general, contribute nothing at all to the community I and my friends belong to.
Roy is one of the people I'm against, on this basis. He's a proven liar--which by the way makes any possibility of reconciliation moot. Roy's made promises to me within the past few days that he went back on almost immediately. After retracting some libelous statements he made, once I'd backed him into a corner, offering an apology (which I had to dictate to him) and promising to be more responsible in the future, he's write back to posting articles claiming that I'm "not a Linux guy" because I happened to be using a Mac.
I'm using one of my Linux laptops right now, Roy. Does that mean you'll take back all those bad things you said...?
The side I'm on builds community. The side Roy's on divides and tears down community. The side I'm on speaks the truth. The side Roy's on tells lies. The side I'm on works to make the world a better place. The side Roy's on want to make it a place that works the way they demand.
Does that answer your question?
Chips_B_Malroy
2009-07-16 21:34:28
Thank you for the reply, and some of your comment was very good I might add. Most of it well written, BTW. Clearly, I had no idea what you did, and still to some degree I have questions, if you will bear with me.
So you work for Ubuntu and Gnome, is what I gathered? Most likely you are high enough up in the chain of command as to get a paycheck? I do not mean that in a bad way either, money and earning a living is and can be a good thing. My only point, is there are so many that do not get "paychecks" in FOSS, that perhaps you should think more about belittling the "little" people who work tirelessly without getting those paychecks, you know for free, which maybe you are, and probably did at some point for many years too. Roy would be one of those.
Really, I don't care what you are "against," you made it more than clear in 170 comments that this topic has run that you hate Roy and can never forgive him. But you say Roy lies, prove it, give examples. Because Roy apologized to you about the Fink thing, and then turned around and wrote about your RMS crusade of the "emacs virgin" grilling, you think you are slighted? Look within yourself, you have stepped over the line, twice by my count here, once with RMS, and once with Roy. But if you have other examples of Roy's lying, I would listen. Its your soapbox, Roy has not banned you. But if this way my site, I would, without any hesitation at all. Just like they do in the Ubuntu user forums, its called moderation.
By your reasoning if I apologized to say, Hans Reiser for something someone else said about him, trying to use my name, and then Hans killed his wife, I should not post or comment on that? Yes, thats a very extreme example, but I just wanted you to think on that.
Lefty, clearly you are an very important person in the GNU/Linux community, even more than I thought. Even though if Ubuntu and Ghome went away tomorrow it would not affect me in the slightest, I would still regret it for others. I am being a bit hard on you, because I think you need to drop some of the emotion and flames against this site and Roy. It does not reflect well on you or those communities you work for. You want to work with the community, do so, please. Bear in mind, that BN, Roy, RMS, and to the smallest extent possible, even I am a part of the community. Please do not look down on us.
But I think there is somehow more to this between you and Roy, isn't there? So you use a Mac, big deal, maybe you prefer it, maybe you are not really someone who is a FOSS advocate at all, but just someone who wants a paycheck? I think not, maybe you just like the Mac, and have it on one of two computers, but also use Linux like you say, more likely. I agree that because you use a Mac proves nothing, but does imply.
The fact that you work for Ubuntu and Gnome means something. I use neither btw. Not that they are bad or anything, I just prefer real Debian based and KDE. Would I be surprised if you are not one of the Mono/Moonlight advocates, and that is part of your problem with Roy, the fact that BN is all about stopping Mono? I don't know your involvement if any with Mono, so I ask if you are.
Roy Schestowitz
2009-07-16 22:08:21
eet
2009-07-16 22:16:28
David "Lefty" Schlesinger
2009-07-16 22:50:09
David "Lefty" Schlesinger
2009-07-16 22:48:00
Given that you "liked" people attempting to screw around with my employment and sending emails to my manager, but only wanted them to distance it from the site more in the future, I'd like to stress that I represent myself here, not my employer.
The "legal intimidation", Roy, is the effort I had to make to get you to retract and apologize for your libelous statements. You admitted they were libelous, remember? So, what's with this? Are you saying that retraction and apology was insincere?
If you think I've libeled you, Roy, I insist that you either prove it, or retract that claim. I've posted the evidence of what I say. You've provided no evidence to counter that except for a lot of hard-to-believe claims, especially hard to believe since you've lied (or conveniently "misremembered") a number of things, like your claim that I told you to contact Fink, and your claim that you and Jeff Waugh had talked on the phone and settled your differences.
The evidence supports that you directly lied to me about knowing Mark Fink and you misrepresented things when you told me you thought what he was doing was "disgusting".
You claim otherwise, but, as I keep pointing out, all you do is claim things. No evidence, no support, no substantiation. Given that I've caught you "misremembering" things (always to your advantage, I might add), why should I believe your claims?
David "Lefty" Schlesinger
2009-07-16 22:35:55
I'm a member of the GNOME Foundation Advisory Board.
Most likely you are high enough up in the chain of command as to get a paycheck?
As Roy knows, I worked for Apple for ten years. Yes, I earn a salary, I work for a living. As far as my current employer, that's irrelevant to this discussion, especially since Roy colluded with Mark Fink to attempt to disrupt my employment, <a href="as I've documented in my blog. Here, I represent nobody but my own sweet self. Thanks for asking.
My only point, is there are so many that do not get “paychecks” in FOSS, that perhaps you should think more about belittling the “little” people who work tirelessly without getting those paychecks, you know for free, which maybe you are, and probably did at some point for many years too. Roy would be one of those.
Okay, "Chips", you do have a reading problem. Roy "works tirelessly" to disrupt community and to spread disinformation. If he went bankrupt, I'd throw a party. If he lets this domain lapse for as many as seven seconds, I'll own it: I've got a standing order.
By your reasoning if I apologized to say, Hans Reiser for something someone else said about him, trying to use my name, and then Hans killed his wife, I should not post or comment on that? Yes, thats a very extreme example, but I just wanted you to think on that.
Sorry, this is completely incoherent. I'm pretty sure it's nothing like my reasoning. I honestly haven't the slightest idea what you're trying to say here.
Lefty, clearly you are an very important person in the GNU/Linux community, even more than I thought.
Have I mentioned that I don't like flattery much? Suck up to Roy, I think he enjoys that. Makes him feel worthwhile or something. My self-esteem's fine, and since I don't know you, I can't really value your opinion on me too highly.
But I think there is somehow more to this between you and Roy, isn’t there?
Read my blog entry. Then you'll have some vague idea what you're talking about; I'm afraid you don't right now.
Roy Schestowitz
2009-07-16 23:23:04
Once again you're libeling me.
David "Lefty" Schlesinger
2009-07-16 23:42:41
Note the portions I've emphasized, Roy. Now, those statements, to "distance yourself" and to "make it look...personal" are statements about Fink's future behavior. You approve of what he's been doing (after having told me you thought it was "disgusting") and then you tell him how to conduct himself in the future.
That clearly shows collusion. And the truth is an absolute defense again charges of defamation, Roy. They're your own words, digitally signed.
You've claimed that there was a "first email" to Fink in which you really laid into him, but you've never produced it. If you produce it now, there's a clear reason to suspect that it's not authentic. Moreover, the sudden transition from "disgust" (in this alleged "first email") to providing approval and specific direction in the email I have is far from credible.
And as I've pointed out, you seem to have regular trouble with actual facts, like your statement that I told you to contact Fink, and your statement that you'd talked with Jeff Waugh on the phone and settled your differences. So why should I believe you about this "first email" you claim exists someplace?
Feeling libeled? Call your lawyer. I'll be thrilled to file a countersuit against you. You've dealt with me in bad faith again and again. I've been honest and straightforward with you, and I defy you to prove differently.
Not claim differently, Roy; prove differently.
Sabayon User
2009-07-16 23:53:12
David "Lefty" Schlesinger
2009-07-17 15:22:59
Roy? You there?
Have you managed to get through that four-paragraph transcript yet? Have you read my blog entry? (Perhaps, like Chump, you're too scared to set cursor on my web site or something).
And what about that "first email"? Finished writing it yet?
Jason
2009-07-17 00:11:23
I'm sorry, I must have missed where Lefty has "belittled people who work tirelessly [on FLOSS] without getting those paychecks."
Roy doesn't contribute anything positive to FLOSS. It also doesn't matter if he gets a paycheck or not for his "journalism" on this website. His agenda is very clearly to wage a smear campaign against Microsoft, Novell, Mono, GNOME, Miguel de Icaza, and anyone or anything else that doesn't take his side.
He has even gone so far as accusing Canonical of "censoring Mono opposition":
1. http://boycottnovell.com/2009/06/01/banning-opposition-to-mono/ 2. http://boycottnovell.com/2009/06/06/opposition-to-mono-by-default/ 3. http://boycottnovell.com/2009/06/09/mono-critique-for-ubuntu/
You'll even notice that in the third article, Roy even uses Mark Fink's actions to support his argument that Ubuntu is censoring opposition to Mono. This is where I find things getting interesting...
From what I can tell of the dates, Lefty didn't contact Roy until after the 9th (the date he wrote the third article I listed). Yet, as Lefty has pointed out on numerous occasions, Roy has claimed that he never even heard of Mark Fink.
What else are we to conclude other than that Roy is lying?
I don't know about you, but to me, this looks an awful lot like Roy really did put Mark Fink up to these attacks to give Roy more evidence to use to attack Canonical/Ubuntu.
So there you have your evidence of Roy being a liar.
But if that doesn't do it for you, Matt Zimmerman (Canonical's CTO) posted to this website earlier today, attacking Roy for his obvious smear campaign against Mono:
http://boycottnovell.com/2009/07/16/novell-puts-mono-center/
So, question for Roy: What if Lefty was an employee for Canonical? What then? Clearly Matt Zimmerman doesn't think very much of your shenanigans, and I doubt his rebuttal to your smear will negatively affect anyone's perceptions of Canonical or Ubuntu.
-- Jason (a GNOME contributor who has gotten sick and tired of Roy's lies)
David "Lefty" Schlesinger
2009-07-17 00:37:31
I first exchanged email with Roy on the 12th!
::taps foot::
Roy?
Jason
2009-07-17 00:49:20
If anyone still isn't convinced that Roy and Mark Fink are in collusion, then they are clearly turning a blind eye to the (substantial) evidence at hand (and Roy's lies).
Roy Schestowitz
2009-07-17 00:51:11
And there is no connection between me and that incident.
Jason
2009-07-17 01:20:20
Do you know who you sound like? Bill Clinton when he said, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman."
There's been over a dozen lies you've been caught in with just this Mark Fink incident alone, ranging from "I've never heard of Mark Fink" to "I am disgusted with his actions".
ALL of which have been disproven with evidence to the contrary and NONE of which can you support any of your statements with any evidence.
I'm sorry if your word isn't good enough.
David "Lefty" Schlesinger
2009-07-17 01:26:16
Roy, you talked about Fink with Mackenzie two full days before you told me to my face, "I don't know Mark Fink."
That was a lie. "I was just talking about that guy with Mackenzie two days ago." That would have been the truth. I don't think you can even tell the difference any more, frankly, and I must tell you: that's pathological, Roy.
You can keep telling me you had nothing to do with it, but the evidence to the contrary just grows and grows, doesn't it? That's the problem with lying, Roy: reality always smacks you upside the head, sooner or later.
Man, how do you look at yourself in the mirror in the morning?
Roy Schestowitz
2009-07-17 01:28:31
No, I'm not.
Clinton actually lied.
Please enumerate these "over a dozen lies".
AFAIK, I have never made such a statement. Googling for it only shows Schlesinger putting words inside my mouth: "He claimed he'd never heard of Mark Fink..."
I am indeed. And IRC logs show this. But to say to a person's face such a thing is a lot harder.
Are these "ALL" over a dozen? Including fictitious quotes?
Jason
2009-07-17 01:31:10
Notice that "mailing lists" is a link to the very ubuntu-devel mailing list thread involving one Mark Fink.
So yea, I fear that the evidence against Roy is even more substantial than even you realized, thinking that the only mention was in the comments ;-)
Roy Schestowitz
2009-07-17 01:31:58
I never reply to trolls, but I'll make the exception by replying to your lies again.
I still don't know Mark Fink. Stop playing with semantics. You fool nobody.
Roy Schestowitz
2009-07-17 01:34:23
I knew about that thread just like many others knew about it. It was only days later IIRC that David contacted me.
You show nothing of substance here, Sherlock.
David "Lefty" Schlesinger
2009-07-17 01:47:45
You seem to be confused, Roy. It's you who's not fooling anybody.
I've called out four undeniable lies from you, none of 'em related to the incident with Fink. You demonstrate a pattern of lying, Roy.
In contrast, you have yet to demonstrate that I've lied anywhere. You claim I have, but that's a lie, too. You've offered zero, zip, zilch, nada, no evidence whatsoever, other than your word. As Jason says, and as I've said, why, at this point would anyone take your word for anything?
Roy, if you told me the sky was blue and you had five fingers on your right hand, at this point, I'd need to look outside, and personally count them before I'd believe you.
David "Lefty" Schlesinger
2009-07-17 01:50:59
As we've seen, you don't "recall correctly". You didn't "recall correctly" that I specifically told you I didn't care if you contacted Fink or not, and then you went on to claim that I'd told you to while talking to your chums in IRC. Why? Because you thought it made you look better than the truth did.
You didn't "recall correctly", apparently, that Jeff Waugh did not give you his phone number, that the two of you did not have a chat and settle your differences.
So, forgive me if your "IIRC" is uncomforting and unconvincing to me.
Roy Schestowitz
2009-07-17 01:56:07
I did not say that Jeff Waugh give me his phone number.
You make it hard for me to ignore trolls when you keep lying. Stop shoving words in my mouth, please.
David "Lefty" Schlesinger
2009-07-17 02:20:00
However, you did tell me all about the nice chat you and Jeff had on the phone in which you ironed out all your differences. You even commented on how much nicer a guy Jeff was than I, since he didn't need to threaten you with legal action.
Here's what Jeff wrote me, shortly after you made that claim (I was being kind earlier, but the subject is "Idiot Roy", which seems quite apropos at the moment):
"The only time I have ever spoken to Roy on the phone was for that ridiculous OOXML debate. It was not a personal call. There was no discussion of his unproductive behaviour or resolution of his bogus accusations."
You're a lying tool, Roy. There's the proof for you.
David "Lefty" Schlesinger
2009-07-17 00:42:25
I've mentioned that the subject of Roy's web site here came up many, many times in the course of the week in hallway discussions and chats over beer at the Desktop Summit.
I do not exaggerate when I tell you that the perception of this site in general, and of Roy in particular, is very, very negative. LIterally not one single person with whom I spoke, when the subject of this site came up, had a positive thing to say.
I keep trying to tell Roy that the people he imagines he's "advocating" to consider him to be a divisive liar, who does nothing but damage.
Jason
2009-07-17 01:22:15
Oh, believe me, I know.
Chips_B_Malroy
2009-07-16 23:06:15
@Roy: who said: "Is Schlesinger really working for Ubuntu or Canonical?" -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- He (Lefty) says he is, so I assumed (rightly or wrongly) that he was. But even someone like me, who is not important, compared to all that Lefty is, (or claims to be) can and we check up on him. While I do not use Ubuntu, I am a member. I will ask questions. Thanks Roy, for pointing out that I fell victim to just assuming it was truth. Even easier to check:
GNOME Foundation Executive Director Stormy Peters Email: gnome-press-contact@gnome.org Phone: +1-617-206-3947
http://www.gnome.org/press/releases/2008-10-motorola-google.html
also: http://foundation.gnome.org/about/
from the link: Advisory Board
The Advisory Board is made up of organizations and companies that support GNOME. The Advisory Board has no decision-making authority but provides a vehicle for its members to communicate with the Board of Directors and help the Directors guide the overall direction of GNOME and the GNOME Foundation.
The Advisory Board consists of representatives from the following GNOME Foundation member corporations and projects:
* ACCESS * Canonical * Debian Project * Free Software Foundation * Google * Hewlett-Packard * IBM * Igalia * Intel * Motorola * Mozilla Foundation * Nokia * Novell * OLPC * Red Hat * Software Freedom Law Center * Sugar Labs * Sun Microsystems
Advisory board member companies pay an annual fee which helps finance the operations of the GNOME foundation. There are two levels for commerical companies.
* Small company: 1-49 employees. $5,000 / year * Medium and large company: 50 or more employees. $10,000 / year
No fee is paid by the invited non-profit organizations that are part of the advisory board. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lefty is not on the board of directors, from what I see, but there are other contributors from various companies/organizations, like cannonical and gnome. I think they employ 47 members total. So he falls into a much smaller role I believe, if he works there.
Also Roy, as you know, I am not a member here. I have posted here in the comments, and have been on the IRC several times. But my opinions are my own, not to reflect on BN, you, RMS, or anyone else. If I was a member, would I still be asking Shane why he has problems with us "Yanks"? I think he should explain himself on that. But since Shane is no longer BN, I cannot ask you to do it for him.
Shane Coyle
2009-07-16 23:49:44
Shane Coyle
2009-07-17 00:02:52
That is how many folks in other countries, I believe, (based upon many conversations and empathizing) would feel about our hyper-interventionist foreign policy of the past 70 years or so. Sorry if that offended you.
David "Lefty" Schlesinger
2009-07-16 23:26:59
I've answered that question, multiple times.
I am a Mono user, by virtue of being an F-Spot and Tomboy user. If better replacements that were non-Mono came along, that'd be fine with me, I don't feel strongly about it.
I know people who work on Mono, including Miguel de Icaza, and people who write Mono applications, like Aaron Bockover. I don't work with them professionally, but I regularly see them at the community conferences you guys never seem to manage to attend.
None of these people are demons or monsters, none has fangs, none is the Spawn of Satan, and none is a "Microsoft shill"
My company doesn't use or ship Mono.
Lefty is not on the board of directors, from what I see, but there are other contributors from various companies/organizations, like cannonical and gnome. I think they employ 47 members total. So he falls into a much smaller role I believe, if he works there.
What's with the concerted effort to track me down, "Chips"? You seem to be trying to stalk me.
Finding out who I work for is not difficult, but I'm having a hell of a laugh seeing you guys struggling with it. You're a fine bunch of technocrats and investigative reporters, I'll say.
JohnD
2009-07-16 23:43:49
David "Lefty" Schlesinger
2009-07-17 00:00:49
I am? Show your reasoning. Proof by blunt assertion, even blunt repetitive assertion is not impressive.
Given that ACCESS competes against Microsoft, who exactly would I be "shilling" for?
Sabayon User
2009-07-17 00:04:48
JohnD
2009-07-17 01:38:08
David "Lefty" Schlesinger
2009-07-17 01:53:39
"I didn't go in the cookie jar!"
"Roy, your arm is in the cookie jar, up to your elbow."
"I didn't put it there!"
JohnD
2009-07-17 02:00:42
joo
2009-07-17 02:14:19
David "Lefty" Schlesinger
2009-07-17 00:30:29
Having said that, and being cognizant of the past history of people associated with Roy having attempted to interfere with my employment before, and having determined to my satisfaction that Roy was aware of and involved in such efforts, I want to provide the following fair warning to all.
If efforts are made by members of this site to contact my employer over discussions here--and I assure you that there's no point--I will take it out on Roy.
I've already had to use the threat of a lawsuit to get Roy to retract some previous libel, apologize for it, and promise not to libel me again. He's abrogated his agreement with me and shown he's acted in bad faith at this point.
Again, if folks try to take discussions here and whine about me to my employer, I will absolutely have legal action taken against Roy for defamation and for interference with my livelihood.
As Roy knows, I'll win, too, and you lot will no longer have this nice cesspool to swim in.
I hope that was fairly clear.
JohnD
2009-07-17 01:41:29
David "Lefty" Schlesinger
2009-07-17 01:57:25
Sabayon User
2009-07-16 23:49:07
This is standard MO for the Boycott Boys, David. I thought you had noticed by now.
If they can't track down a USENET post you made in 1993 where you said something they consider insulting to their religion, they'll just say that they sense you are evil and are being paid by Microsoft, but can't quite prove it. Then that becomes "fact" and used repeatedly to support their arguments against you.
Chips_B_Malroy
2009-07-17 00:04:27
I am already guessing that your are who you claim to be, but that is my only opinion. Niether have I checked yet. There are lots of fakes out there, sadly. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lefty says: "I know people who work on Mono, including Miguel de Icaza, and people who write Mono applications, like Aaron Bockover. I don’t work with them professionally, but I regularly see them at the community conferences you guys never seem to manage to attend."
And he let me highlight the "YOU GUYS" part. Do not confuse me with BN, I am not that. My opinions are mine own. But I am going to make some guesses here about you, and you can tell me if you want to if I am right or not. But I going find out either way. LOL 1. Dispute what you say you are a advocate for MONO/Moonlight. And this is hidden root cause of your problem with Roy and BN. 2. The company you work for that is a contributor to the foundation is either Novell or Cannonical. Not that I care, but it goes a long way to explain your problem with BN. I only care if you really are on the Foundation.
But Lefty says: "My company doesn’t use or ship Mono." That should rule out Novell or Cannonical, if that is true.
Lefty says: "I know people who work on Mono, including Miguel de Icaza, and people who write Mono applications, like Aaron Bockover. None of these people are demons or monsters, none has fangs, none is the Spawn of Satan, and none is a “Microsoft shill”" ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- So where do you exactly get off implying that I said that? eet yes, he is a shill or troll. I actually have a lot of respect for Miguel, he has done many great things. Even the fact that Miguel asked MS for the CP I respect that. But RMS is still right (in my opinion) that the patent issues still remains. What needs to be done here is to stop the flames and try to find a little more common ground.
David "Lefty" Schlesinger
2009-07-17 00:14:34
And you seem to keep implying that I've lied about things. Can you, or Roy, or anyone point to a demonstrable lie that I've told in the time I've been posting here? (Note that I said "demonstrable". The signed email I have demonstrates to my satisfaction that Roy is a two-faced liar. I expect to see similar evidence of any claims that I've lied here. Knock yourselves out.)
But I going find out either way.
You're kidding me. If you haven't managed to figure out my employer in this time, I think you must be trying to use the Yellow Pages or a ouija board or something.
Chips_B_Malroy
2009-07-17 00:09:08
Roy Schestowitz
2009-07-17 00:12:07
Sabayon User
2009-07-17 00:26:35
Let me know if you need anything else.
Shane Coyle
2009-07-17 00:31:33
Luckily I'm not keynoting, or I'd be disappointed with myself... ;^ )
Roy Schestowitz
2009-07-17 00:43:17
People amicably discuss politics in IRC sometimes, but rarely in the comments where there's a better-defined topic. :-)
Since some people who hate this site routinely enter IRC and also drop a comment here and there (we have content moderation in neither fora), there's bound to be something that will be bad and also wrongly attributed to "Boycott Novell", even if it's 'planted' by those who simply want to harm this Web site.
It's amazing how far people would go trying to make the site look like a place with k00ks. Trust me, I've seen enough. It is all they have left -- assassinate a messenger because the message cannot be refuted.
Remember that this whole post (and page) was about Moonlight. I see no discussion in the comments about Moonlight, so they successfully steer the discussion towards false accusations, insults, and unpleasant things for readers to wave through.
In some people's term, it's called "cr*pflooding".
joo
2009-07-17 00:57:50
David "Lefty" Schlesinger
2009-07-17 01:06:53
Roy, I'm sorry to have to be the one to inform you of this, but you look like a k00k all by yourself. Ask around. Ask folks like Matt Zimmerman or Michael Meeks or Dave Neary or, really, anyone who's well known as a FLOSS community member. Even if they think Mono's a risk, they still think you're a liar with a bad obsession.
Trust me, I’ve seen enough. It is all they have left — assassinate a messenger because the message cannot be refuted.
This isn't assassination, Roy, it's suicide.
Jason
2009-07-17 00:41:20
I’m sorry, I must have missed where Lefty has “belittled people who work tirelessly [on FLOSS] without getting those paychecks.”
Roy doesn’t contribute anything positive to FLOSS. It also doesn’t matter if he gets a paycheck or not for his “journalism” on this website. His agenda is very clearly to wage a smear campaign against Microsoft, Novell, Mono, GNOME, Miguel de Icaza, and anyone or anything else that doesn’t take his side.
He has even gone so far as accusing Canonical of “censoring Mono opposition”:
1. http://boycottnovell.com/2009/06/01/banning-opposition-to-mono/ 2. http://boycottnovell.com/2009/06/06/opposition-to-mono-by-default/ 3. http://boycottnovell.com/2009/06/09/mono-critique-for-ubuntu/
You’ll even notice that in the third article, Roy even uses Mark Fink’s actions to support his argument that Ubuntu is censoring opposition to Mono. This is where I find things getting interesting…
From what I can tell of the dates, Lefty didn’t contact Roy until after the 9th (Lefty's blog post is dated the 13th). Yet, as Lefty has pointed out on numerous occasions, Roy has claimed that had he never even heard of Mark Fink.
What else are we to conclude other than that Roy is lying?
I don’t know about you, but to me, this looks an awful lot like Roy really did put Mark Fink up to these attacks to give Roy more evidence to use to attack Canonical/Ubuntu.
So there you have your evidence of Roy being a liar.
But if that doesn’t do it for you, Matt Zimmerman (Canonical’s CTO) posted to this website earlier today, attacking Roy for his obvious smear campaign against Mono:
http://boycottnovell.com/2009/07/16/novell-puts-mono-center/
So, question for Roy: What if Lefty was an employee for Canonical? What then? Clearly Matt Zimmerman doesn’t think very much of your shenanigans, and I doubt his rebuttal to your smear will negatively affect anyone’s perceptions of Canonical or Ubuntu.
– Jason (a GNOME contributor who has gotten sick and tired of Roy’s lies)
Jason
2009-07-17 00:45:14
Roy Schestowitz
2009-07-17 00:47:25
joo
2009-07-17 00:53:59
Jason
2009-07-17 00:54:37
You have no evidence to support your accusations, so it's pretty hard for me to side with you, especially since you have been proven to have lied on countless occasions. And then there's the fact that Lefty has actual evidence to support what he's saying (PGP signature of you encouraging Mark Fink but asking him to pretend he's not involved with this site in an effort to make you look credible).
How could I possibly conclude that you are in the right and Lefty is wrong? I'd have to be living in Bizarro-World to reach the conclusion that you were the Good Guy.
Sabayon User
2009-07-17 00:57:24
By the way, I like this "Mark if a Fink" character. It's a nice touch. I wonder if Shane might help us by doing an IP lookup on his posts, since you are obviously not fazed in the least by his sudden appearance. I wonder who he might turn out to be.
Roy Schestowitz
2009-07-17 00:58:56
I make no accusations. I am being asked to prove the INEXISTENCE of something that does not exist -- a bit like freaks who ask for an actual proof that the US government was not orchestrating 9/11 or people who ask for proof that God does not exist.
David "Lefty" Schlesinger
2009-07-17 01:10:30
I beg your pardon? You accused me of libeling you within the past hour or so.
Or did that also conveniently slip your memory...?
Jason
2009-07-17 01:14:44
And yes, you have made accusations. For example, accusing Canonical of censoring Mono opposition. Accusing Mono supporters of being behind the complaints about RMS's sexist comments at GCDS.
None of which can you back up with any sort of evidence at all, except to point to another troll's blog (who ALSO has no evidence).
Roy Schestowitz
2009-07-17 01:20:18
I didn't lie. Proof please.
Examples please. Show where I lied.
The examples you give are not related to the same topic.
Factual.
No, capitalising on them.
Be specific, please.
David "Lefty" Schlesinger
2009-07-17 01:40:14
You lied about me. I had to drag a retraction and apology out of you.
You lied in your promise not to repeat spreading lies about me. Within a day, you were (mis-)reporting, in the face of abundant and easily discoverable evidence to the contrary, that I was "not a Linux guy", based on my using a Mac. In case you've forgotten, that's called a "flagrant disregard for the truth." An important notion in defamation cases.
You lied about my supposed "telling" you to contact Fink, when the comments clearly showed I did no such thing. (Yeah, yeah, you "misremembered", but it's awfully interesting how all you mis-memories are to your advantage.)
You lied about Jeff Waugh giving you his phone number and the two of you working out your differences in a phone call.
There's four right there. I've got proof of every single one, all right here on the site, with the exception of Jeff's email to me.
Jason
2009-07-17 01:45:32
Roy Schestowitz
2009-07-17 01:46:57
I don't "know" Mark Fink and I don't even know if it's a real name.
Jason
2009-07-17 01:48:56
You're going to have to offer me proof, which, afaict, is something you don't have.
Roy Schestowitz
2009-07-17 01:52:41
No, I have not. You'll have to back that with proof.
Allow me to repeat: I am being asked to prove the INEXISTENCE of something that does not exist — a bit like freaks who ask for an actual proof that the US government was not orchestrating 9/11 or people who ask for proof that God does not exist.
David "Lefty" Schlesinger
2009-07-17 02:25:23
David "Lefty" Schlesinger
2009-07-17 01:09:11
Mark is a Fink
2009-07-17 00:49:41
@David If "Mark Fink" and Roy had an active collusion going on, why would Roy even bother to say that "I liked what you do"? If it were a collusion, that would be entirely redundant. As for the rest, that sounds to me like Roy is politely trying to tell him to stop mentioning "Boycott Novell" in his "advocacy." Additionally, that suggests that the topic of the e-mail was advocacy in public forums. I see nothing else to suggest that "I liked what you do" refers to anything else.
Chips_B_Malroy
2009-07-17 01:05:02
Also. I can wait for the email. Anyway, someone has already posted you work for Access, who makes cellphones. Not a community distro for computers. Maybe thats why Access lets you get away with your crusade against RMS, because they use very little GNU, but mostly the kernel for their cellphones.
David "Lefty" Schlesinger
2009-07-17 01:32:13
ACCESS "lets me get away with it" because a) it's got nothing to do with my job, I'm a private citizen here and b) because I'm right. Tolerating sexism in the community, especially from a so-called "Leader of the Free Software movement" is simply wrong.
Jason
2009-07-17 01:08:30
Let's just pretend that this is a true statement (and it's Roy saying it, afterall, and we all have seen that Roy has lied numerous times about this issue already).
If that is true, then how come he told Lefty that he had never even heard of Mark Fink before June 12th?
No matter what, Roy lied. He either lied about never having heard of Mark Fink before the 12th (he used Mark Fink as a source as recently as the 9th). Are we to believe that Roy erased his brain in the 4 days between these dates?
As Lefty has pointed out numerous times, Roy does know who Mark Fink is. That much is obvious. There are numerous instances of he and Roy communicating on this website.
It could just as easily be that Roy was happy with the outcome of the flame-fest that erupted on the mailing-list... especially since it's tied together with the statement that follows.
You must be deliberately stupid to reach the conclusion you so desperately want to reach.
Roy Schestowitz
2009-07-17 01:15:19
David "Lefty" Schlesinger
2009-07-17 01:33:50
(Does anyone else sense the incredible amount of squirminggoing on? I do.)
Roy Schestowitz
2009-07-17 01:37:09
David "Lefty" Schlesinger
2009-07-17 02:02:36
Four times.
Your claims of me libeling you are getting pretty stale, too. Your story about Fink has disintegrated completely at this point.
If I libeled you, Roy, how is it that you were the one who offered a full retraction and apology to me? Were you lying then, or are you lying now?
More lies. Didn't your mom ever tell you that cheaters never prosper, Roy?
Chips_B_Malroy
2009-07-17 01:51:51
Where I see a problem with you MONO supporters, is the way you attack people. RMS, Roy, BN, PJ and most others that support Freedom. Now Lefty says he is not a big MONO supporter. Fine. But he works for a company that makes cellphones and is not really much of a GNU user, more of a kernel user like Tivo. They are into the money end of things, which in no way makes them a bad company. But niether does it make them a proponent of Freedom either. They contribute money to kernel development, but to GNU, I doubt much.
Again, this fight is about Freedom. Lefty attacks Roy, BN. He cannot get over it. He attacks the man who had the dream to start GNU, without any remorse. Why? Is it because Lefty doesn't care about the Freedom of GNU/Linux? His actions say yes. But Lefty likes to fall back on his Foundation position to show all of us how much better he is. He gets paid for that plus the trips to events everywhere, right Lefty? How did you get that job Lefty at the Foundation? Oh thats right, ACCESS appointed you. It had nothing to do with how good an advocate for GNU you are, did it? The truth is Lefty would be equally at home working in Redmond as he would where he is now. GNU/Linux would be better off with Lefty gone to someplace like Redmond.
Which brings us to you MONO supporters. RMS has stated that the CP is not enough. So some (not all) of you trash him as well. The Freedom that GNU provides is not the free price. You guys, thank you for you coding, but please, go back to Redmond and get a real licence for all Linux users that protects us, not this CP thing. Its more than just the coding guys, it has to pass the legal test here in the USA.
David "Lefty" Schlesinger
2009-07-17 02:10:27
Pal, you're mistaken. On several scores, I told you that ACCESS doesn't make cell phones. In fact, we do a lot of work with GNOME, GTK, Gstreamer, D-Bus, etc., hence my involvement in the advisory board. I'm also a founding member of GNOME Mobile, as it happens, but you wouldn't know that, would you, "Chips".
You're pretty dense. If you repeat the same old misinformation again, I'm going to start thinking you're just Roy's sockpuppet. I suspect someone let all the "magic blue smoke" out of you, "Chips".
Chips_B_Malroy
2009-07-17 02:27:17
Oh really? And where did you say that? Since you would not even tell me where you worked. Ok, ACCESS makes the software for Cell phones. Which can include some of the GNU components, the parts you mentioned, It obvious that ACCESS doesn't make a "DISTRO." So no need to lie about it.
Lefty also says: "m also a founding member of GNOME Mobile, as it happens, but you wouldn’t know that, would you, “Chips”."
Its more likely that I just don't care Lefty what you belong to or poison. For all I know you sweep floors there.
David "Lefty" Schlesinger
2009-07-17 02:36:07
Its more likely that I just don’t care
Nah, it's a lot more likely that you just don't know. Because, for all the "advocacy" going on around this site, you folks are incredibly ignorant of what's actually going on in the FLOSS community.
David "Lefty" Schlesinger
2009-07-17 02:12:47
I'm still waiting to hear whether Roy is going to nominate himself for one of the open seats on the Ubuntu Technical Board.
And, Chips, I don't usually find myself saying this that often, but the situation clearly calls for it: you're an idiot.
Chips_B_Malroy
2009-07-17 02:16:53
David "Lefty" Schlesinger
2009-07-17 02:29:56
David Gerard
2009-07-17 02:23:47
I don't think you're a troll, you're too obsessive for that. You are however a raving offensive nutter and have the sort of social skills that get geeks called "geeks." Have you ever kissed a girl?
Dear Roy,
Stop feeding this idiot and write more articles. You may wish to post this one again in a special Moderated Comments edition.
David "Lefty" Schlesinger
2009-07-17 02:28:50
David "Lefty" Schlesinger
2009-07-17 02:34:50
Admin: comment from a forger. Please disregard.
David "Lefty" Schlesinger
2009-07-17 02:38:58
Nice.
I guess we not only dislike women around here, but folks who don't happen to be heterosexual, too.
I'm not sure your clever imitation of my writing skills is actually sufficient to deceive anyone.
joo
2009-07-17 02:41:11
David "Lefty" Schlesinger
2009-07-17 02:43:30
joo
2009-07-17 02:57:36
Chips_B_Malroy
2009-07-17 02:30:41
David "Lefty" Schlesinger
2009-07-17 02:41:08
Where'd you take your degree in psychology, "Chips"?
David "Lefty" Schlesinger
2009-07-17 02:58:13
(Hint: that's because I'm widely recognized as being an expert in the legalities related to open source and free software licensing.)
I'm also friends with Harald Welte and Armijn Hemel of gpl-violations.org.
Do you have the slightest idea who any of those folks are, Chippy? Roy?
Roy Schestowitz
2009-07-17 02:33:30
I try.
I was gonna post some Linux links tonight, but my time was spent here responding to false accusations.
David "Lefty" Schlesinger
2009-07-17 02:41:56
Jason
2009-07-17 02:36:13
Maybe you missed the part where Roy offers Mark access to edit the site.
Now, I don't know about you, but I doubt anyone offers other people access to edit their website unless they actually know the person first.
Us "Mono supporters"? And how did you reach that conclusion?
Where have I said anything about my support of Mono? You are putting words in my mouth and trying to label me without any evidence. You must be one of the BN regulars since you so obviously live in Bizarro-World, where anything you say is fact no matter how little evidence you have and everything everyone else says that disagrees with you is automatically false no matter how much evidence they have.
I'm sorry, but where have either myself or Lefty (or any "Mono supporter" for that matter) attacked RMS or PJ? I've seen absolutely no evidence of this anywhere, and I'm a lot more involved in GNOME than either you or Roy, so if this were true, I'd likely know about it.
Lefty has criticized RMS's tactless "joke" at GCDS. He has not attacked RMS himself.
Same goes for Matt Zimmerman, Natan Yellin, a dozen women (some of which are even involved with KDE which doesn't even use Mono), and others.
My "attacks" against Roy are about his blatant lies, libel, and unsupported accusations about the GNOME project, Canonical, etc.
Are you saying that since Lefty has a job and gets paid money, that he cannot possibly be a Freedom supporter?
How, may I ask, do you financially support yourself? Presumably you must have a job or you wouldn't be able to pay the internet bills... unless you simply a leach off of someone else?
The fact that Lefty contributes to FLOSS in his spare time as well as for work (which you'd likely know if you bothered to actually join the community), I fail to see how he is somehow anti-Freedom.
Your logic is just full of fallacies.
You're right. It is about Freedom. Roy is anti-Freedom. Hence why Lefty attacks Roy and his plethora of lies.
It seems to me that the reason he can't get over it is because Roy keeps libeling him.
If someone were libeling you, would you not be upset? That's a rhetorical question, by the way, since we already know the answer is that you would be - just as you are upset right now that Roy's "sainthood" is being destroyed before your very eyes.
Uh, twisting the truth will get you no-where. None of the GNOME developers, Canonical developers, nor KDE developers that have posted their distress at RMS's sexist "joke" at GCDS are attacking RMS, they are attacking the message.
Something which you seem unable to do. You are attacking Lefty and I and not our message.
Again with attacking the messenger instead of the message.
I'm not sure where you get the idea that Lefty would be more comfortable working at Microsoft.
Nor am I sure where you get the idea that Lefty's contributions would not be missed if he left the community.
Your contributions wouldn't be missed, that's for damn sure. Nor would Roy's "advocacy" be missed.
Lefty's contributions, on the other hand, would be missed.
The harder you try to smear Mono, the more I want Mono to succeed - if only to piss you guys off.
Before I came here tonight, I couldn't have cared less about Mono. I don't use Tomboy, I don't use F-Spot (I keep promising myself that I'll start taking more photographs but so far I haven't), I don't use Banshee and I don't use Beagle (I think it's a cool technology, but it doesn't fit in with my current workflow).
And yet, it's more protection than any other piece of software on Linux has.
Who is "you" in this context? Me? Where have I ever trashed RMS? Mono developers? Where have the Mono developers trashed RMS?
And you complain about the "smears" against Roy. AFAICT, you are only concerned when the "smears" are in your direction, but wholly support them when they are against community members and community projects.
Gee, I wonder who the real Freedom haters are.
I've never been to Redmond, tyvm.
The CP does pass the legal test in the USA. Maybe you missed the part about it being legally binding.
David "Lefty" Schlesinger
2009-07-17 02:44:38
Maybe he just ignored it as being inconvenient for him.
Chips_B_Malroy
2009-07-17 03:05:06
Maybe he just ignored it as being inconvenient for him -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Not at all. And I not an legal expert. Therefore I listen to those who are. When RMS says there are still problems, I believe him. I trust his judgement more than either of yours. Also when Miguel goes back to Redmond and asks for the CP, it makes me agree, that at that point there was at least a problem before. And now Miguel is splitting the Mono parts into two parts, one part he says is clear, and the other part is ? Miguel means well, but, the trust factor is not what it used to be here. This is the sad part, that great people like Miguel is losing face in the Linux community.
Roy Schestowitz
2009-07-17 03:08:49
Also see:
"MIX - Novell's de Icaza criticizes Microsoft patent deal" http://www.thestandard.com/news/2008/03/06/mix-novells-de-icaza-criticizes-microsoft-patent-deal
David "Lefty" Schlesinger
2009-07-17 04:18:11
You're kidding. Really? Well, I am, at least in this area, as I mentioned.
When RMS says there are still problems, I believe him.
Why? He's not a legal expert, either. What is this, "RMS said it, I believe it, that settles it!" Fundamentalist Free Software?
Stallman seems to be as invested in the idea that Microsoft is somehow the Antichrist as you folks are. He's the head of the FSF. Lawyers prove the points that their clients tell them to, whenever possible.
This is the sad part, that great people like Miguel is losing face in the Linux community.
That's not true. Miguel had personal business that kept him away from GCDS, and I heard tons of people expressing sadness that he wasn't there.
RMS is surrounded by lawyers. His statements are not made by or are based on gut feeling.
The Ubuntu Technical Board is also surrounded by lawyers, and they say that while the risk is there, it's not major and it is manageable.
Roy, if you're so interested in getting Mono out of Ubuntu, why aren't you running for the technical board? I mean a big journalist and "advocate" like you? You'd be a shoo-in, huh?
Roy Schestowitz
2009-07-17 02:49:47
False. I sometimes invite readers of this site to submit contributions. That's not "edit[ing] the site".
I don't have time to respond to the rest of your long message, but your remark needed to be corrected.
David "Lefty" Schlesinger
2009-07-17 04:19:13
David "Lefty" Schlesinger
2009-07-17 23:42:39
Like I said, if I gave a page on my web site to someone, I'd for sure know who they were and remember them.
Chips_B_Malroy
2009-07-17 23:11:47
"Well, when I was at NYU back in the 70s, I wrote message-handling code for an IMP (Internet Message Processor) that connected NYU to the ARPAnet. When I was at Apple in the 90s, I wrote the drivers for many of the token ring and Ethernet cards that Apple made. If you installed an update to AppleTalk or MacTCP between 1993 and 1995 on a Mac, that was me and my team. I haven’t coded much since I became a manager at Apple, but three years ago I was managing a 35-person kernel/driver/core software team. That was before I took on this good gig I have now." ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The reason I am writing this is, because Lefty like many others, and both sides. always belittles those who do not "code." And since he is a "FOSS or Linux Advocate" in his own words, wouldn't we expect that he has done a great deal of "coding" in FOSS or GPL licensed software? I know I would. But looking at his list, its all Apple software, which he was an Apple employee and drew a paycheck for. Except for the message handler part very early on, which predated FOSS and GPL most likely.
Still its an impressive list Lefty. But its not the mountains of code (Free open source software=none) that we would expect, now is it? In fact you were just into coding for the bucks, true?
Ah, but that doesn't take into account what Lefty says here: "but three years ago I was managing a 35-person kernel/driver/core software team."
Sounds impressive to me. Almost would sound like Lefty was the real Linux Torvalds. Well, except that Lefty says he "managing" and not coding. Lefty like many others, like to belittle others that cannot code. But truthfully, does anyone else see where Lefty has "coded" a whole lot of FOSS software, or for that matter a whole lot of anything?
Now why would not Lefty answer my question if he was working day to day with Linux Torvalds or not? My guess is that while Leftys answer that he "was managing a 35-person kernel/driver/core software team," was technically correct, its left out many details that might have cast him in a role that would not compare with Linus, even remotely. My guess, and yes its a guess, because Lefty doesn't want to answer the question, is that Lefty was working for ACCESS drawing a paycheck on that 35 member team, which most likely downloaded a ARM kernel from Kernel.org, complied it, the "programmers" (coders nowadays folks to you) wrote some scripts, maybe a driver, compiled and added to the kernel, parts were then taken from the GNU software (the OS started by RMS) like some parts of Gnome libraries and GTK to make a User interface for the Cell phone software that ACCESS makes. This is correct isn't it lefty?
But I am going to go a little bit further with this. Lefty says he "managing" the team. And just like in the term "emacs virgins" there are more than one meaning of "managing" the team. Coders are referred to still sometimes as "Programmers," but when I learned how to "program," that is what they were called period. At that time a manger could be a "Project Manager" who was usually someone with "programming experience and could also to some flow charting. Project Manager should not be confused with someone managing or Administrating a Project. They did not have hiring and firing responsibilities. Project managers where those who usually set what the program needed to do and how it would do it for the programmers.
Program Managers were also paid more than programmers. Programmers were the entry level jobs mostly, working in cubicles, not nearly as glamorous or high paying as one would think. Back then you could make more money typically on the entre level programming job, for most companies, by pounding nails (working construction). Maybe it has changed now, I do not know. I suggest that its also possible that Lefty was a "Project Manager" on that Kernel team for ACCESS instead of the guy running the show. But either is possible. Who knows, maybe he was working for Linus, LOL. Sure.
Now this is not a put down of Lefty, cause what he did do is impressive. Its just by omission he trys to make himself more important than his is. The ego problem that has been noted before.
But I am not done on the "programming" rant yet. I have said in the past that I am not a "coder." True, but I did learn to "program." in many more than just one language. I did not sell, license, release any programs. I did write some minor stuff, runtimes nothing but stuff to play with to learn. But belittling others because they are not "coders," is not the right thing to do. Lefty is not by his own one a major coder either. We all hear of the big money that can be made by programmers, not true, unless you are Bill Gates or maybe Linus. Working for a company as a coder is not going make you rich. Most companies, including to some Degree are off shoring where there software is written, To places like India and China, where the base level pay for new coders could be as low as $1 to $2 an hour for coders. So do you have to know how to code to know about the Freedom of GNU software? NO. Get over the coding FUD people on all sides.
Now Lefty thinks he is an advocate. Because he gives speeches all over for the Foundation and ACCESS. Who knows, maybe he even writes those speeches or maybe ACCESS does. But one thing is for sure, after doing it for 3 years now, Lefty has convinced himself that his speeched are somehow the truth, and that he is the great FOSS and/or Linux Advocate. Truth is, ACCESS is the advocate, and Lefty is just an paid employee who gives speeches. Lefty even uses a Mac. Lefty, you are a flake and a phony, aren't you? Your actions speak louder than your words at your conventions. You make fun of GNU software, you attack Richard Stallman, you attack Roy who defends Freedom and GNU/Linux. You are full of ego and hate, but really cannot point to anything major that you have done for desktop GNU/Linux, can you? PAID at every turn.
Now, for the hidden motive of Lefty. Why he hates Roy, and to some extent maybe Stallman. Lefty is only a mild MONO supporter. But I noticed that Lefty's "emacs virgin' attack came shortly after RMS came out with the patents concern. Still maybe this was not related, who knows. But Lefty went "exploded" for a better word, when Roy published his attack on RMS. Why, could it be that once again, that Lefty is only concerned about himself? About the one things that matters to him, most of all, a paycheck? BN gets a lot of attention these days, could it be that Lefty did not want the BN article to get on Digg/Slashdot, or other places where ACCESS and the Foundation might see this.
Can anyone image that ACCESS and the Foundation would let a low level employee do this type of behavior on their paid time without some sort of discipline? That is if it got back to ACCESS and the Foundation.
David "Lefty" Schlesinger
2009-07-17 23:23:37
I never said I worked with Linus Torvalds; I said I worked with Linux.
Since you're only parroting the same old "It's all about patents or Mono or anything at all as long as it's not about Stallman's actual behavior", I'm not going to even bother with you.
(Do you guys have pictures of Stallman under your pillows or something?)
The fact that you're as dumb as you are makes it even easier. As I said, you lost al credibiltity when you claimed my web site was filled with pro-Mono postings, and you were unable to find even a single one as an example.
Actually, make the next one five times as long, could you? No one can be bothered to read this much incoherence in one place, but it seems to keep you amused and out of people's hair.
David "Lefty" Schlesinger
2009-07-17 23:36:53
Um, Chump, I'm not on "paid time" at the moment. I'm taking a comp day since I traveled all this past weekend and worked the weekend before: I've got four days coming to me this week.
Now, since you seem to have missed the memo, I made it very clear earlier on that I represent only myself when I post here, no one else. In particular, I don't represent ACCESS.
I've also made it clear that, given the history--as documented in detail on my blog--of Roy approving of and giving direction to trolls who contacted my management over my telling someone (colluding with Roy) to quit posting flames to the ubuntu-devel list,
IF MY MANAGEMENT SHOULD BE CONTACTED BY ANYONE WHO COMPLAINS ABOUT WHAT I'M DOING HERE, I WILL TAKE IT DIRECTLY OUT OF ROY'S HIDE, IN A COURT OF LAW. I'VE ALREADY GOTTEN AN ADMISSION FROM ROY THAT HE LIBELED ME, IN THE FORM OF A RETRACTION AND APOLOGY, BUT SINCE HE'S ABROGATED HIS AGREEMENT TO CEASE FROM FURTHER LIBEL, I'M NOT BOUND BY ANY PAST AGREEMENTS, AND ROY'S MAKING THESE REPRESENTATIONS IN BAD FAITH WILL COUNT AGAINST HIM.
In other words, don't attempt to mess with my job, Chimp--not that it would do you the slightest bit of good, by the way--or Roy will be the one who ends up paying for it. As I've said, I will go for court costs and damages commensurate with the "millions of hits a day" Roy claims this site gets (at even a penny a pop, that's real money, Roy).
Further, I will ask that this domain be transferred to me, I will fill it up with pictures of kittens, all saying ""and I might even go for an order to keep Roy off the Internet for a while.
Like that idea? If you guys want to keep this nice cesspool of yours, play fair. Play nice. Don't even think of getting extra-curricular with me.
Do I make myself fairly clear?
(Roy, this is your cue to tell us that you had nothing to do with it, and that I'm libeling you again. That's a lie, but feel free to try to make your case in court if you like.)
David "Lefty" Schlesinger
2009-07-17 23:48:56
Hm. I don't think I've ever "belittled those who do not 'code'". (I have belittled bogus "advocates" who have never gone to any conferences and don't actually know any of the people they claim they advocating to, and who don't realize that the people they claim they're advocating to view them as a bad sort of joke... But that's different.)
Actually, I think the non-coders deserve at least as much respect--and I'm talking about folks who do artwork, write documentation, do user experience design, and all the other things that make good free software--as the coders do. The coders usually think their job is fun, while getting a big kick out of, say, localization is a lot harder.
So, you're flat-out wrong, Chimp. Again. And there was thus no reason for you to write this comment.
David "Lefty" Schlesinger
2009-07-18 00:12:19
Anytime.
Chips_B_Malroy
2009-07-17 02:54:22
And Lefty for all his talk, is a big MONO supporter, I have read his site. MONO is the problem between BN and Lefty. That and severe personiaty problems with anger that Lefty clearly needs help with. If you want to be Lefty's friend, help him get help.
Roy Schestowitz
2009-07-17 02:57:11
This is news to me. Can you please produce proof?
David "Lefty" Schlesinger
2009-07-17 03:12:16
Chips_B_Malroy
2009-07-17 03:12:19
Roy says: "This is news to me. Can you please produce proof? " -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- What I read on his site in the link seemed clear enough. But he always starts off making a statement that he is not a big mono supporter, or similar type words. Then he just mostly goes on to defend MONO etc.
I would not actually want to go back to his website, or link to it, to give him anymore traffic. He clearly has some problems is what I see.
Roy Schestowitz
2009-07-17 03:15:17
David "Lefty" Schlesinger
2009-07-17 03:18:36
A translation for the non-simian: "If I admit that I've gone back to look, I'll have no way to back up the ridiculous and untrue claims I made, not moments ago, and, rather than look like a complete moron on account of that, I'd prefer to make up some nonsense about being too scared or proud or something to set foot on that web site ever again, and look like a complete moron on account of that."
Fine work, Chimp. Have a nice banana and take a nap.
David "Lefty" Schlesinger
2009-07-17 03:23:17
—Will Smith as "Capt. Steven Hiller" in Independence Day
That's some crew you've got there, Roy. I can see you're larnin' 'em real good. (The best thing is, they work for peanuts!)
—Chris McQuarry and Kevin Pollak as "Cop" and "Todd Hockney" in The Usual Suspects
Jason
2009-07-17 02:57:26
Really??
Also what gives you the idea that he is a "big Mono supporter"? The fact that he is ok with using a few Mono apps and doesn't badmouth it at every opportunity? That's what passes as being a "Mono supporter" to you?
I think you need to come back to reality.
Roy Schestowitz
2009-07-17 03:19:58
AFAIK, he has no strong feelings on Mono. The only resemblance to Mono that I see is his avatar, which reminds me of the Mono logo.
David "Lefty" Schlesinger
2009-07-17 03:26:15
So, Roy, now that we've established that I'm not "a big Mono supporter", where does that leave your soi-disant reportage suggesting that the real reason I called Stallman on his "harmless little joke" was because I disliked his position on Mono?
I only ask 'cause that is what you've been saying.
David "Lefty" Schlesinger
2009-07-18 00:16:28
I only just noticed this!
Jeebub, Roy, are you listening to yourself? My avatar reminds you of the Mono logo....? I think you really are starting to manifest some sort of cognitive problem here, you're seeing Mono everywhere.
(Your avatar reminds me of "Alfalfa" from the LIttle Rascals. Except he had a more intelligent expression. But that's really immaterial.)
David "Lefty" Schlesinger
2009-07-18 00:23:00
Well, I think it does.
I really hate it when people do that, y' know?
—Edward Norton as "Bruce Banner" in The Incredible Hulk
David "Lefty" Schlesinger
2009-07-17 03:11:17
You know, Chump, a liar is one thing. A stupid liar, who tells lies that can be disproven with trivial effort is very much another.
Okey-dokey, Chimp. Put up or shut up. Having "read his site", please post links to the places where I reveal that I'm "a big MONO supporter". Trot 'em on out.
Quite frankly, I haven't really discerned a lot of evidence that you can actually read.
David "Lefty" Schlesinger
2009-07-17 03:14:38
And what, specifically, would that have been, Shemp? You haven't struck me as the clearest thinker around, so who knows what seems "clear" to you?
Chips_B_Malroy
2009-07-17 03:26:07
While I am amused, I suggest you use a spellchecker.
But sure, maybe I have trouble "reading" what you write. You being such an great FOSS advocate, and so much more important with fancy titles as such. That you would even reply to the likes of me, I should be thankful. But, I am not.
I sense a disturbance in the force, at least in the force of one Lefty. He has anger, lot of it. I sense anger from Lefty towards me. Come on Lefty, no need to keep it all in, tell us what you really think of me? LOL
David "Lefty" Schlesinger
2009-07-17 03:31:09
At that point, I'm doing you a big favor by even responding to you. If I called you "Fido", it'd be better than you deserve at this point.
Stop whining. Start telling the truth.
David "Lefty" Schlesinger
2009-07-17 03:34:03
Fabulous, another mind reader. Hey, how many fingers am I holding up?
(Sorry For The Inconvenience, but I'm laughing my ass off at you.)
David "Lefty" Schlesinger
2009-07-17 03:06:13
And then completely forget who they are.
Did you suffer some sort of catastrophic head injury at some point, Roy? If I had the memory problems you have, I'd be quite concerned.
Jose_X
2009-07-17 03:29:37
And do you know these people or are they just names?
Do you even remember everyone that replied to you in the articles you wrote 3 weeks ago?
I haven't followed this conversation that much, but if it boils down to this, why is it still being maintained?
Jason
2009-07-17 03:37:01
...But you've got to compare apples to oranges to make your argument.
That's very telling.
Roy Schestowitz
2009-07-17 03:39:49
David "Lefty" Schlesinger
2009-07-17 03:41:44
Yes. If offered someone a page to maintain on my blog, I would absolutely and without question remember them.
I think poor Roy might need a visit with a neurologist. What do you think, Jose?
AND WHERE IS MY DAMNED "INTERPRETATION"?
Roy Schestowitz
2009-07-17 03:44:35
David's site is not a Wiki, it is run by one person, and the comments are two orders of magnitude lower in terms of number, so the question is improper.
David "Lefty" Schlesinger
2009-07-17 03:46:24
Um, you offered to let him edit a page here, Roy. How many times do you do that?
Ninety times a day? Three times a year? Somewhere in between? And you make these offers to people you "don't know", huh?
Like I said, if I was prepared to hand over a page on my web site to someone, I'd for sure know and remember who the heck they were.
I mean, really, Roy, this is starting to get absurd.
If you say something along the lines of "I never lied, show me where I lied", you're gonna look pretty silly at this juncture.
Jose_X
2009-07-17 12:37:48
Jason
2009-07-17 13:00:09
A little digging reveals that this site only recently got a wiki (in mid-to-late April of this year).
And again we find you and Roy being dishonest. Where does your dishonesty stop?
Roy Schestowitz
2009-07-17 13:08:41
Jose_X
2009-07-17 13:47:23
>> And again we find you and Roy being dishonest. Where does your dishonesty stop?
It never stops. Being unmasked on this thread in public before all my blood brothers and sworn enemies has been unbearable.
David "Lefty" Schlesinger
2009-07-17 14:46:35
He also promised to endeavor not to make such irresponsible statements in the future. That was good for about four hours, until he started posting articles to inform the world that I was "not a Linux guy" because I'm using a Mac.
A real man of his word, that Roy. Someone you can really rely on, as Willy found out when Roy cut and ran from the thesis they were attempting to push, admitting that the two of them had lied about me, leaving poor Willy looking like a fool.
David "Lefty" Schlesinger
2009-07-17 03:39:00
When I've had as many interactions with a person as Roy has had with Mark, at first and second hand, then yes, I generally do remember that person.
And Jose, where is my "interpretation" now that I went and found the video and transcript you demanded before you could discern the hidden meaning of Stallman's words, rather than the "literal" understanding that pretty much the entire audience, as documented in blogs, on Twitter and elsewhere, somehow was foolish enough to come away with?
You didn't think I'd forgotten or something, did you...?
Chips_B_Malroy
2009-07-17 03:53:57
You have attacked too many people. People that are respected, and in the process, you have alienated many. We don't need your type in FOSS. We need folks that want to and try to get along, not those who come here and cry all over the internet.
David "Lefty" Schlesinger
2009-07-17 04:02:50
Sometimes respected people do things that are wrong. And when someone stands up and calls them on those things, if they wish to stay respected, then they consider the situation, and if it has merit, they apologize and change their behavior in the future. Unfortunately, Stallman did none of those things. I didn't make him respond the way he did.
We need folks that want to and try to get along, not those who come here and cry all over the internet.
Oh, you mean folks like Roy? Whose idea of "trying to get along" is slinging as much mud as he can? Who's so consistently bad a liar that he's getting caught in one unbelievable claim after another?
You're kidding me, Chimp.
Jose_X
2009-07-17 05:30:10
How many interactions would that be? I think I remember reading that the numbers in Roy's case were quite small. And we know he posts all over the place and replies many times to people he doesn't know (he can't know everyone on the Internet, especially if they posted on his website only a few times over a year ago). In fact, not only would he likely not know this person, but he wouldn't even remember the name.
>> You didn’t think I’d forgotten or something, did you…?
No, I asked for that because I was not going to accept your interpretation without some evidence beyond the few lines you quoted (which does very little or nothing to cover the context, visual or even verbal). This is especially true when I see you on here attacking the site over and over.
I do not follow all threads or go back to all my comments, so if you posted the link can you repost?
HAL 9000
2009-07-17 03:44:10
Roy Schestowitz
2009-07-17 03:46:27
David "Lefty" Schlesinger
2009-07-17 03:56:29
Funny world, huh? Lucky for me, I'm a lot better at what I do than you are at what you do, Roy. I'm going to the Community Leadership Summit, where I suspect both Roy and Stallman will be subjects of discussion, I'm doing a segment on a national radio show in a week, I'm doing a presentation and a panel at the Open Source in Mobile Conference month after next, and a presentation at eComm the month after that.
I suppose a big journalist like you does a lot of panels and stuff at conferences, huh, Roy? No?
I guess you must be too busy "advocating", huh?
joo
2009-07-17 04:05:03
Chips_B_Malroy
2009-07-17 04:17:17
David "Lefty" Schlesinger
2009-07-17 04:24:36
joo
2009-07-17 04:50:32
Roy Schestowitz
2009-07-17 05:02:36
David "Lefty" Schlesinger
2009-07-17 05:08:25
joo
2009-07-17 05:09:45
David "Lefty" Schlesinger
2009-07-17 05:13:56
Waaaaaaaaaait a second. Hold the boat.
Roy, I made a comment within the past few days where I said that there was something weird going on with the site, that I would rate my comments, but that the ratings wouldn't stick. You said it was "server caching" and without it the site "wouldn't function" (which I frankly thought was a pretty bogus explanation).
Go back and check the comments if you like, but please don't add the suggestion that I've hacked your system somehow to your current list of defamations.
I told you I was rating my own comments several days ago. That's not the behavior of someone who's "found some loophole".
I think you owe me an apology. Again.
David "Lefty" Schlesinger
2009-07-17 05:35:54
Jose says this could be "character assassination", which I don't quite understand. I mean, he said what he said, so doesn't that make it "character suicide" or something?
Anyway a video of a performance of the same routine is on YouTube.
Here's Matthew Garrett's transcript:
“…we also have the cult of the virgin of emacs. The virgin of emacs is any female who has not yet learned how to use emacs. And in the church of emacs we believe that taking her emacs virginity away is a blessed act.”
He worded it slightly differently at GCDS, it was a “woman who has not yet learned to use EMACS” and “…it is a holy duty in the Church of EMACS to relieve her of that virginity”, but the meaning, and the offensiveness, is the same.
The word “virgin” has nothing at all to do with a particular gender and those who are sensitive to the word are usually virgins.
And when the virgin in question is specifically identified as "female" or "a woman". Does it have nothing at all to do with gender then?
Jose_X
2009-07-17 06:30:31
David, do you purposely like to get people upset. I don't think you will get me too upset (so you may not want to take too many minutes off your life trying).
I have not suggested the entire audience likely misunderstood. I don't know the opinion of the entire audience. They likely don't all agree with you. However, it is possible that many in the audience took something too literally if it was not intended that way.
>> Jose says this could be “character assassination”, which I don’t quite understand. I mean, he said what he said, so doesn’t that make it “character suicide” or something?
Of course someone can take someone else out of context by quoting only a little part of what this other person said, and then draw conclusions from this and spread that information, possibly even intentionally knowing it's not accurate. Of course, what you were doing could be an example of character assassination if the focus was on condemning Stallman (I haven't read so carefully as to identify if you were doing precisely this). The same would apply if I was doing that. http://www.answers.com/character%20assassination
>> Anyway a video of a performance of the same routine is on YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=25ejlP0uWeI
Thanks. I'll take a look.
... [looking] ...
Thanks for the link.
I think it is not necessarily on the sexist side, but it might very well suggest some sexism.
I can imagine if there was a ritual known as the Virgin Jesus, that he would poke fun at males. In fact, he made fun of hackers as being people that don't get laid. In any case, I do worry there might be sexist motives behind this or that the presentation might not be in tune with it's effect on women. In particular, it's always tricky when you poke fun at anyone but yourself.
Aside from this example of what is clearly satire, how does he treat women? That is important to know in order for the sexist label to stick.
In terms of apologies, I think women should email him (preferably politely). In fact, by now, I figured he has been emailed if this was a real issue. If it was emailed numerous times in the past, it does look like he would not have learned or felt a need to change.
Now that we have a video, we can show it and conduct a poll. I am a male, and what I think in this case is hardly important compared to what a female thinks.
David, do you want to conduct a poll? Women might be more likely to be honest with you, eg, through email, than they might be in general with someone else?
Of course, I am trying to help draw this to a conclusion and maybe in the process help bring attention to an important issue, but, otherwise, I don't care about focusing on the life of people that much. Others might like that, but I don't. [So don't ask me to keep pushing this beyond maybe helping to bring some light to a sexism problem.]
Oh, and, yes, I think people should *not* "worship" Stallman, Miguel, Gates, Linus, or anyone else.
Again, thanks for the video. That is what was needed, believe it or not. Make sure you post on your blog, so you can receive more and accurate feedback.
Jose_X
2009-07-17 06:44:27
The scene suggests sexism because it repeats a stereotype; however, that happens a lot in satire and other forms of humor. Chris Rock is clearly racist by a wide margin because he has referred to white people as white cracker repeatedly, right?
He might be racist, but I don't think most people would think so. He is funny. Stallman's delivery may have cut him short. If the audience is not laughing, humor of any type sounds not so humorous.
Not defending Stallman nor attacking those that very possibly had very good reasons not to be amused, but satire is about repeating and almost indulging in stereotypes or whatever you are mocking. Sorry, but that is how the game is played.
Again, RMS might be sexist, but this performance doesn't convince me or at least masks the extent.
[BTW, C Rock possibly does feel or has felt or would feel pain because of racism and uses humor to address it. I'll try to remember to ask him the next time I talk to him.]
Jose_X
2009-07-17 06:51:35
..And perhaps I am being too insensitive by being white male.
David "Lefty" Schlesinger
2009-07-17 06:56:06
Okay, that does it. Stop wasting my time, Jose. This is a wild goose chase.
The fact is, we already had "a poll". We had it at the Desktop Summit, and the majority of folks thought it was shameful and sexist. That's why you're seeing the criticism of Stallman, what you've irresponsibly referred to as "character assassination". You've been provided with links to other blogs, several from non-Mono users, who supported my version of things, yet you couldn't manage to figure out what Stallman meant. Not without that video. Not without that transcript.
After all, there might be some subtle clue that only you could pick up on, something that the audience, taking the "literal interpretation", i.e. the plain sense of what Stallman said, was in your rendition somehow unable to perceive.
And now, after you've been provided with every single thing you demanded, you still can't figure it out. You want to take a poll.
Sorry, too late. The informal poll conducted in the form of numerous multiperson discussions at the Gran Canaria Desktop Summit (bet you're sorry you weren't there now, huh?) determined that what Stallman said was sexist, and that his inability to acknowledge, apologize for, and endeavor to correct his behavior is not the sort of thing people are looking for in a leader. Hence the numerous, blog postings critical of Stallman's behavior that you folks want to insist are "really about Mono".
(Sorry; we thought it was just too important to stand around two weeks waiting for you to explain it all to us, Jose.)
Even after Roy admitted that he can't find a scintilla of evidence to support the contention that I'm a "Mono advocate".
You people are astounding. I don't know how you live with yourselves, honestly.
David "Lefty" Schlesinger
2009-07-17 07:00:27
"talking about relieving women of their virginity casts women in a submissive role, with men in a dominant role, and brings up thoughts of oppression and (indirectly) rape. (yes, thinking about a roomful of guys thinking about taking womens’ virginity does eventually lead me to wondering how many of them would take it by force.) it becomes less about the non-sexual meaning of “virgin” and more about all the crazy ideas societies have had about virgin women. and thinking about that stuff would make any woman uncomfortable."
You just refuse to get it, don't you?
Jose_X
2009-07-17 11:22:55
Jokes of certain types are likely to offend people. Sometimes it's a small number, sometimes it isn't. Who the person is and how they deliver it and what happens afterwards are important parts of judging whether sexism or anything else is being encouraged etc or not. But jokes of certain things tend to alienate groups of people and are very difficult to deliver without offense. [Of course, some people don't care about offending.. it helps to be thick skinned.]
The gang rape you mentioned is a very real problem here. In particular having a group gang up on an individual (in this case it is sex and the individual is implicitly a woman as women were apparently underrepresented). We are in a room of mostly males just like you said, and that sort of joke was taken further than it should because virginity wasn't just mentioned (that was satire.. and could have mentioned sacrificing people under different context) but he extends it in a not very pretty or obviously joking fashion by saying it was their job to end the virginity. The reference "their" means that he is siding with a majority to abuse a vulnerable minority. At least implicitly he is creating that effect.
Again, people that understand satire can let this pass, but it's not likely that one can push the envelope this way without offending or (in this case) intimidating people. I avoid those types of jokes, but not all people do. It's actually very common within groups that share certain characteristics to have someone mock outsiders in a way many will find at least partly humorous (if done lightly, etc)
I think people should suggest to Stallman that he adjust his performance. On the other hand, he is already mocking religion and probably a few other things that are very important to some people. Something similar applies there though less intimidating I would imagine.
In the video from youtube, it's not that easy to see the effect you likely experienced because in the video many people are laughing throughout.
We should do something to raise awareness of this since apparently too many people still don't realize that perhaps this particular joke is too harsh on an underrepresented group which makes it unlikely they will complain.
I completely dislike your delivery David, but it was probably a good thing you brought this up. This won't end here.
BTW, I had similar thoughts when the mono/debian guy (forgot his name) was attacked as being sexist for his joke on the email list.
And when you are used to being with a particular group, it's easy to get carried away and be less disciplined than you otherwise might be.
David "Lefty" Schlesinger
2009-07-17 14:03:50
Having been driven into a corner, I get yet another well-maybe-it-is-or-maybe-it-isn't-or-maybe-it's-an-ice-cream-sundae sort of response. Again.
You know, I've wondered how you manage to get out of bed in the morning. I picture you lying there, trying to decide to your own satisfaction, whether it's really morning, or if there might be alternate explanations. You mull, and consider and weigh the possibilities, and by the time you've made up your mind that it is morning, it's eleven o'clock at night, so you go back to sleep.
I completely dislike your delivery David...
I completely dislike your efforts to avoid grappling with an uncomfortable question, going through contortions to insist that no one who was there actually understood what Stallman really was saying, and your tap-dancing around the need for a video and a transcript before you could express this overly long and meandering non-opinion.
And that goes double for Roy, who still doesn't seem to have managed to figure out what Stallman was really saying that all of us misunderstood.
Roy's still got a story with a prominent link to the mono-nono story suggesting that I'm conducting some sort of defamatory "witch hunt" because I'm a crypto-Mono-supporter, even though Roy has conceded that there's no evidence to show that I'm a Mono supporter.
I don't much care what you folks dislike, frankly. I'm finding the lot of you increasingly disturbing. You start from an axiomatic basis that "Stallman can't possibly do wrong" and proceed from there.
Jose_X
2009-07-17 15:47:26
And you and I, we're going to stamp out sexism in all its many varieties.
Let me keep homing my sneaky patented process here in boycottmono. You bring us juicy footage from each kingdom you befriend and grace. Even Roy can help as he prepares you the next whopper.
David "Lefty" Schlesinger
2009-07-17 16:07:12
I'd stick to dithering, diversion, vacillation, equivocation and logorrhea if I were you--those seem to be more your strong suits.
David "Lefty" Schlesinger
2009-07-17 16:10:19
And, by the way, thanks for showing your true colors (again) and trying to turn a serious issue into a joke. Seems like you and Roy and the rest are doing more to stamp out discussion of sexism, at least when it's Stallman doing it.
Have you ever actually met a woman, Jose...? Just wondering.
David "Lefty" Schlesinger
2009-07-17 16:16:06
Um, Jose, are you living under a rock? Is Roy's memory problem contagious?
Did you somehow forget that I emailed Stallman to describe the issue and suggest exactly that, only to be greeted with claims of victimization and a complete refusal to either apologize or change, twice (from Stallman), as well as the Nameless Chorus singing a round of "OH NOES! YOU POSTED PRIVATE EMAIL!!" following up by a rousing chorus of "IT'S REALLY ALL ABOUT MONO!"
Amazing, Jose.
David "Lefty" Schlesinger
2009-07-17 16:21:44
"I unfairly accused Lefty of gaming the ratings when, in fact, the truth is that the rating system on the site is busted, and I'm not competent to figure out why or fix it. I apologize to Lefty for making this unjust implication, fully and unreservedly retract it, and endeavor not to make similar irresponsible and unsubstantiated claims in the future."
You post that, I'll print out a copy, and then I can use it to line a bird cage. 'Cause that's about all it's worth, coming from you, Roy.
Chips_B_Malroy
2009-07-17 04:06:51
David "Lefty" Schlesinger
2009-07-17 04:36:34
Chips_B_Malroy
2009-07-17 04:41:23
Roy Schestowitz
2009-07-17 04:52:29
David "Lefty" Schlesinger
2009-07-17 04:59:26
For your information, Chump, these things are called "credentials". You and Roy not actually having any, you wouldn't know too much about stuff like that.
I'm still waiting for you to produce evidence, as opposed to Proof By Blunt Assertion, that I'm a "proponent of Mono". Just repeating it over and over only makes you look sillier.
I don't think you're qualified to be offering psychological diagnoses. Ask your mommy what she thinks.
If you're slyly referring to Stallman, I haven't attacked him. I've criticized a very unpleasant sexist joke that he told on stage, in the course of a keynote, at a major technical conference. Did you even attempt to read my blog entry? Did you read the postings by Matthew Garrett (who doesn't use Mono)? Did you read the entry that Chani (who works on KDE and doesn't use Mono, either) wrote?
She said (and she was present at the conference, sitting in the very same auditorium I was) She was unhappy and upset. I think the overwhelming majority of the women there were. I was offended. Matthew was offend. As were Celeste Lyn Paul, Paul Cutler, Andre Klapper, Dave Neary and many others. After I made my blog posting, people thanked me over and over.
It makes putting up with nitwits like you, and weasels like Roy worthwhile, in a way. As I pointed out, I was actually posting less and less here, until Roy got the brilliant idea of linking the Stallman issue to his Mono-maniacal obsessions.
That was a real smart move, Roy. Good thinkin'.
David "Lefty" Schlesinger
2009-07-17 05:03:26
And once again, the "editor" and "journalist" has nothing more to offer than second-hand slurs.
Impressive, Roy.
Chips_B_Malroy
2009-07-17 05:08:32
adding to my list, this part is a good guess about this gentleman: 13. I doubt he has any friends outside of work. 14. This gentleman strikes me as completely anti-social 15. Either has no close family, or I feel sorry for his family.
Roy Schestowitz
2009-07-17 05:14:32
I'm waiting for that RMS video to go online so I can judge it for myself.
David "Lefty" Schlesinger
2009-07-17 05:27:01
I don't suppose you've taken a look at shugendo.org, but there's a lot of information on a Buddhist pilgrimage in Japan I took last month. I met a lot of real interesting people, walked about 20 km. average a day, climbed two 500 m. mountains in one day, and visited 23 temples, sleeping in traditional Japanese inns and temple housing along the way.
I lead a charmed life, Chimp. I am not kidding around here. And a lot of my friends (and perhaps you'd sneer at them as being "work-related", but this is because you're an idiot) are the very folks working in the FLOSS community on the very free code that so-called "advocates" claim you're working to protect.
So, you just sneered at your own constituency. See? I told you that you were an idiot.
There's a saying in Japanese I really like: 馬鹿ã«ã¤ãÂâãââ¹Ã¨â‹Â¯ãªãÂâ. "Baka ni tsukeru kusuri wa nai": There's no medicine that cures being an idiot.
Chips_B_Malroy
2009-07-17 05:34:33
Maybe you could tell me what code you actually wrote, I be interested. More likely you did a little artwork with the Mac?
Interesting, all that flying, paid for by your company and the foundation? What a waste. But once again you fall true to form, and try to tell us how important you are, You are nothing, within. Hollow man. No heart, empty.
David "Lefty" Schlesinger
2009-07-17 05:46:57
Would you? Well, when I was at NYU back in the 70s, I wrote message-handling code for an IMP (Internet Message Processor) that connected NYU to the ARPAnet.
When I was at Apple in the 90s, I wrote the drivers for many of the token ring and Ethernet cards that Apple made. If you installed an update to AppleTalk or MacTCP between 1993 and 1995 on a Mac, that was me and my team.
I haven't coded much since I became a manager at Apple, but three years ago I was managing a 35-person kernel/driver/core software team. That was before I took on this good gig I have now.
I could go on, but I'd like to hear about all the code you've actually written, Shemp.
What a waste.
Yeah, that's right, Chump. Going to conferences like the Desktop Summit, and FOSDEM, and LinuxTag, and the like, seeing lots of people I know and meeting new ones, seeing the exciting stuff folks are working on, being a part of a community--whereas you folks are nothing more than a goon squad, and not even a bright one at that--yeah, that's a real waste, all right.
You are nothing, within. Hollow man. No heart, empty.
You're delusional.
Chips_B_Malroy
2009-07-17 06:01:25
Ok, was that the kernel team for Apple? Or did you work with Linus? Still impressive, but not GNU. Although, my understanding it that the Mac kernel is somewhat open source based on Darwin. Still, the point is its not making you an GNU advocate by coding Apple not used in our OS, if that is the case. I doubt any software that you have coded is in my OS. But then, unlike you, I do not run a Mac.
Once again, Lefty, you need to tell us how important you are. Think about the ego and anger problem you need help with, before you go over the edge. Get some real help.
I know I have been hard on you. So I am going to end this by posting something nice about you. Your one good quality I see in you:
1. is not in any way overly modest.
David "Lefty" Schlesinger
2009-07-17 06:08:28
I assume when you talk about "GNU", you mean the operating system that Stallman and his friends have never managed to finish, as opposed to the one people actually use?
Once again, Lefty, you need to tell us how important you are.
Chump, you asked what I'd coded. I, obligingly, told you. You turn around and claim I "need to tell you how important I am". Think that makes you look good? Or smart?
But, I'm still waiting to hear all about your extensive coding experience, Shemp.
Oh, I should have mentioned, I do a lot of web site design these days, some PHP, as well as art and photography...
Chips_B_Malroy
2009-07-17 06:34:56
So you managed a kernel development team. Not the same thing as coding, is it? Still impressive. While I did ask if you worked with Linus, I should have asked if you worked for Linus on a day to day basis. Also, I should ask, if maybe your kernel development team was the one at ACCESS or APPLE, for maybe the ARM cell phone, and not the kernel for GNU/Linux on the OS?
That you have talent I do not doubt. Its your personality I disdain. The good things you may or may not have done, are over shadowed by your ego. At this point I could care less if you were Linus and Stallman rolled into one, you still would be a-------------------"Gentileman." One that needs help.
David "Lefty" Schlesinger
2009-07-17 06:40:27
You're kidding, right?
You mean that you haven't figured out yet that you lost any shred of credibility you might have possessed (and believe me, you didn't possess many to begin with) when you gleefully reported that my site was full of pro-Mono stuff, only to be reduced, virtually instantaneously, to a quivering mass of "Well...well...well...see..."..?
And you got poor Roy all excited for a minute there, too. Imagine how disappointed he must've felt when he figured out (it didn't take long, either--I expected he was going to post a story on it, and wouldn't that have been fun?) that you were just making things up.
That was pretty thoughtless of you, Chump.
David "Lefty" Schlesinger
2009-07-17 06:42:20
David "Lefty" Schlesinger
2009-07-17 07:09:07
It's not a dig at Stallman, it's a fact. The reason people use Linux is that Stallman and gang were never able to complete GNU. It's still not complete. They've never gotten their kernel, the HURD, working.
These are technical realities. Am I not supposed to mention them because Stallman's involved? Should I do what I guess you're doing, pretending that there's an operating system out there called "GNU" that people can actually use...?
I'm done answering your questions, by the way.
Jose_X
2009-07-17 12:43:27
I think he was describing Hyde, not Jeckyll.
David "Lefty" Schlesinger
2009-07-17 14:31:16
I think he was describing Roy, actually.
David "Lefty" Schlesinger
2009-07-17 05:48:57
David "Lefty" Schlesinger
2009-07-17 03:48:29
Chips_B_Malroy
2009-07-17 05:21:42
But you know what, I have known real important people. THEY DO NOT NEED TO GO AROUND AND TELL EVERYONE HOW IMPORTANT THEY ARE. BUT YOU DO.
But in my book, lets just say you are some kind of a "GENTLEMAN."
14. Major ego problem 15. complete _______
Roy Schestowitz
2009-07-17 05:53:36
David "Lefty" Schlesinger
2009-07-17 05:54:17
I never said anything of the sort. I said you and Roy and the rest of your pack of so-called "advocates" were little.
That's different.
By the way, when you elicit information and then you say, "Ooh, you must have a problem if you need to talk about that information!" that makes you look stupid. I think you must enjoy looking stupid. You seem to work quite diligently at it, and I have to say, you're pretty successful.
Roy tries to look honest and fails miserably.
David "Lefty" Schlesinger
2009-07-17 05:56:25
You're not going to wimp out, Chimp?
David "Lefty" Schlesinger
2009-07-17 05:58:11
Oh, who have I "threatened", Roy?
David "Lefty" Schlesinger
2009-07-17 15:47:12
David "Lefty" Schlesinger
2009-07-17 05:04:55
I'll take that bet, Chump. $1,000?
twitter
2009-07-17 15:22:30
Congratulations on finding a video with RMS saying the things you said he does, though it's does not do the things you say it does. Mr Stallman's comments are clearly a parody of the Cult of the Virgin Mary. Perhaps it's not the best idea to perpetuate the sexist ideas contained in that Cult, even if it's obvious satire. Only the most deranged or ignorant character would feel sexually threatened by what's obviously a talk about free software from a person who jokes that the world of software is so removed from sex that many programmers meet the strict religious abstinence from sex. What your clip really proves to me is that you would found a way to make trouble no matter what Mr. Stallman said, sex just happened to be the easiest target for you.
David "Lefty" Schlesinger
2009-07-17 15:41:09
I see you still haven't manage to locate two working neurons that you could manage to rub together to actually generate a thought, Willy.
I haven't "abused" or "attacked" Stallman, I've criticized him, and I'm entirely entitled to. Call it "advocacy", if that makes it more palatable to you.
The more you do this, the less credibility you have.
"Credibility" with whom? You? Roy? Jose? The Chimp?
Oooh, that sounds terrible. I'm going to go hide in the back of the closet now.
Congratulations on finding a video with RMS saying the things you said he does...
Congratulations on standing around for two weeks with your eyes squeezed shut and your fingers in your ears, chanting, "Lalalalalalalalalalala-I-can't-hear-Lefty-lalalalalalalalala..."
I'd ask you to retract your statement that I just made this up, but it's pointless. You're as pathological a liar as Roy is.
...though it’s does not do the things you say it does...
No?
Mr Stallman’s comments are clearly a parody of the Cult of the Virgin Mary
A claim that's been dealt with, soundly, about ten dozen times already. You seem to be heading for the argument that "Religion is sexist, and Stallman's parodying religion, so while the joke seems really sexist, because the whole thing is a parody, that 'flips the sign' on the offensiveness of the joke and actually makes it a positive blow in favor of feminism."
Try telling a few women that. When you're finished, I hear ice packs can help a lot with the pain and swelling in your groin. Although you and Roy may well be entirely immune from such ills.
Only the most deranged or ignorant character would feel sexually threatened by what’s obviously a talk about free software from a person who jokes that the world of software is so removed from sex that many programmers meet the strict religious abstinence from sex...
Oh, the stupid! It burns!
So, let's see. For starts, you've identified Chani, Celeste Lyn Paul, Matthew Garrett, Dave Neary, Andre Klapper, Paul Cutler, Kirrily Robert, Jono Bacon and a pile of others as "deranged and ignorant characters". Nice work, Willy. Those are the folks you "advocate" to on this fly-blown and festering corpse of a web site.
Second, you've inverted your conclusion. Did the notion ever enter that empty and echoing cavern that's sitting on top of your neck that maybe, just maybe, the reason that "many programmers meet the strict religious abstinence from sex" (your illiteracy's showing, by the way, Willy) is because they've displayed the same sorts of attitudes that Stallman has, and no sane woman would go near them without a can of pepper spray and a cattle prod?
Whaddayathink?
Dario
2009-07-17 07:09:44
David "Lefty" Schlesinger
2009-07-17 16:34:11
It's really something the way you attract the best and the brightest here, Roy. A lotta sharp minds. Mm hm.
eet
2009-07-17 08:57:06
David "Lefty" Schlesinger
2009-07-17 15:45:55
Roy, still waiting to hear when you're going to put your name in for a seat on the Ubuntu Technical Board. I mean, you were serious about wanting to get Mono out of Ubuntu, right?
Right?
Chips_B_Malroy
2009-07-17 23:17:48
"Well, when I was at NYU back in the 70s, I wrote message-handling code for an IMP (Internet Message Processor) that connected NYU to the ARPAnet. When I was at Apple in the 90s, I wrote the drivers for many of the token ring and Ethernet cards that Apple made. If you installed an update to AppleTalk or MacTCP between 1993 and 1995 on a Mac, that was me and my team. I haven’t coded much since I became a manager at Apple, but three years ago I was managing a 35-person kernel/driver/core software team. That was before I took on this good gig I have now." ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The reason I am writting this is, because Lefty like many others, and both sides. always belittles those who do not "code." And since he is a "FOSS or Linux Advocate" in his own words, wouldn't we expect that he has done a great deal of "coding" in FOSS or GPL licenced software? I know I would. But looking at his list, its all Apple software, which he was an Apple employee and drew a paycheck for. Except for the message handler part very early on, which predated FOSS and GPL most likely.
Still its an impressive list Lefty. But its not the mountains of code (Free open source software=none) that we would expect, now is it? In fact you were just into coding for the bucks, true?
Ah, but that doesn't take into account what Lefty says here: "but three years ago I was managing a 35-person kernel/driver/core software team."
Sounds impressive to me. Almost would sound like Lefty was the real Linux Torvalds. Well, except that Lefty says he "managing" and not coding. Lefty like many others, like to belittle others that cannot code. But truthfully, does anyone else see where Lefty has "coded" a whole lot of FOSS software, or for that matter a whole lot of anything?
Now why would not Lefty answer my question if he was working day to day with Linux Torvalds or not? My guess is that while Leftys anwser that he "was managing a 35-person kernel/driver/core software team," was technically correct, its left out many details that might have cast him in a role that would not compare with Linus, even remotely. My guess, and yes its a guess, because Lefty doesn't want to anwser the question, is that Lefty was working for ACCESS drawing a paycheck on that 35 member team, which most likely downloaded a ARM kernel from Kernel.org, complied it, the "programmers" (coders nowdays folks to you) wrote some scripts, maybe a driver, compiled and added to the kernel, parts were then taken from the GNU software (the OS started by RMS) like some parts of Gnome libraries and GTK to make a User interface for the Cell phone software that ACCESS makes. This is correct isn't it lefty?
But I am going to go a little bit further with this. Lefty says he "managing" the team. And just like in the term "emacs virgins" there are more than one meaning of "managing" the team. Coders are referred to still sometimes as "Programmers," but when I learned how to "program," that is what they were called period. At that time a manger could be a "Project Manager" who was usually someone with "programming experience and could also to some flow charting. Project Manager should not be confused with someone managing or Administrating a Project. They did not have hiring and firing responsibilities. Project managers where those who usually set what the program needed to do and how it would do it for the programmers.
Program Managers were also paid more than programmers. Programmers were the entry level jobs mostly, working in cubicles, not nearly as glamorous or high paying as one would think. Back then you could make more money typically on the entre level programming job, for most companies, by pounding nails (working construction). Maybe it has changed now, I do not know. I suggest that its also possible that Lefty was a "Project Manager" on that Kernel team for ACCESS instead of the guy running the show. But either is possible. Who knows, maybe he was working for Linus, LOL. Sure.
Now this is not a put down of Lefty, cause what he did do is impressive. Its just by omission he trys to make himself more important than his is. The ego problem that has been noted before.
But I am not done on the "programming" rant yet. I have said in the past that I am not a "coder." True, but I did learn to "program." in many more than just one language. I did not sell, license, release any programs. I did write some minor stuff, runtimes nothing but stuff to play with to learn. But belittling others because they are not "coders," is not the right thing to do. Lefty is not by his own one a major coder either. We all hear of the big money that can be made by programmers, not true, unless you are Bill Gates or maybe Linus. Working for a company as a coder is not going make you rich. Most companies, including to some Degree are off shoring where there software is written, To places like India and China, where the base level pay for new coders could be as low as $1 to $2 an hour for coders. So do you have to know how to code to know about the Freedom of GNU software? NO. Get over the coding FUD people on all sides.
Now Lefty thinks he is an advocate. Because he gives speeches all over for the Foundation and ACCESS. Who knows, maybe he even writes those speeches or maybe ACCESS does. But one thing is for sure, after doing it for 3 years now, Lefty has convinced himself that his speeched are somehow the truth, and that he is the great FOSS and/or Linux Advocate. Truth is, ACCESS is the advocate, and Lefty is just an paid employee who gives speeches. Lefty even uses a Mac. Lefty, you are a flake and a phony, aren't you? Your actions speak louder than your words at your conventions. You make fun of GNU software, you attack Richard Stallman, you attack Roy who defends Freedom and GNU/Linux. You are full of ego and hate, but really cannot point to anything major that you have done for desktop GNU/Linux, can you? PAID at every turn.
Now, for the hidden motive of Lefty. Why he hates Roy, and to some extent maybe Stallman. Lefty is only a mild MONO supporter. But I noticed that Lefty's "emacs virgin' attack came shortly after RMS came out with the patents concern. Still maybe this was not related, who knows. But Lefty went "exploded" for a better word, when Roy published his attack on RMS. Why, could it be that once again, that Lefty is only concerned about himself? About the one things that matters to him, most of all, a paycheck? BN gets a lot of attention these days, could it be that Lefty did not want the BN article to get on Digg/Slashdot, or other places where ACCESS and the Foundation might see this.
Can anyone image that ACCESS and the Foundation would let a low level employee do this type of behavior on their paid time without some sort of discipline? That is if it got back to ACCESS and the Foundation. Why would it let an employee insult a respected member of the community. Why would they want that type of negative publicity?