Summary: The king of showmanship remembered, but with a factual look at his achievements, not hype
STEVE JOBS was a very successful capitalist. He helped create a company that made a lot money.
Sure, the iPhone 4S is a sign of stagnation and
more of Apple's usual delusion, deception, media hype, and reality distortion field, but Steve himself did a very good job after he had rejoined Apple. By the word "good" we mean effective, profitable. See
my thoughts on Apple (video) and why the company was in fact unethical. Whether it was Jobs' decision to make those final decisions is not an issue we ought to go into because there is too much uncertainty there. Only people deep inside the company can shed light on these issues. We have some
wiki pages about Apple to provide some more background information on some of these issues.
Apple's outrageous software patents have not gone away along with Mr. Jobs. A day after his death we
read that "Steve Jobs Patents OS X Dock Day Before his Death". To quote: "A search at the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) site reveals 312 issued Apple patents where Jobs was one of the listed inventors; 269 of these of these were design patents, which cover ornamental design aspects of some device. (A search leaving Apple out found 317 patents issues to Jobs, implying he also filed a few patent applications in the years he was not at Apple.) There appear to be dozens more pending patent applications filed in Jobs’ name, as well."
Those were not innovations. Those were design monopolies. Many of those are not deserved due to prior art and generality. We saw these in the courtroom. Apple
needed to doctor evidence (lie) to fool judges.
Richard Stallman's comment on Steve Jobs' death is polite and direct. He wrote in his political blog that "Steve Jobs, the pioneer of the computer as a jail made cool, designed to sever fools from their freedom, has died.
"As Chicago Mayor Harold Washington said of the corrupt former Mayor Daley, "I'm not glad he's dead, but I'm glad he's gone." Nobody deserves to have to die - not Jobs, not Mr. Bill, not even people guilty of bigger evils than theirs. But we all deserve the end of Jobs' malign influence on people's computing.
"Unfortunately, that influence continues despite his absence. We can only hope his successors, as they attempt to carry on his legacy, will be less effective." [
source]
Stallman summed it up quite well. Steve Jobs' legacy was also mentioned by Jamie Love, who
noted that:
Jobs was willing to build his newer products on free open source software and then use proprietary extensions and standards and patent litigation to marginalize free software. He was quite good at turning the operating system and applications into a store to buy things from Apple.
Over at Slated.org we found much harsher words about Jobs, including
the following observations:
But no, it wasn't Gandhi, nor indeed anyone of even the slightest nobility. It was a patent extortionist with an apparent objection to altruism, called Steve Jobs. Even El Presidente fawned over this selfish racketeer, like he was the new messiah, or something...
[...]
According to the CIA World Factbook, 160,521 people die every day. Steve Jobs was just one of them.
I bet very few of the other 160,520 people who died that day ever made sinister threats to ‘go after’ an altruistic software project like Theora, or ran around suing everyone for making ‘rounded rectangles’ and ‘green phone icons’. I bet they also donated a helluva lot more to charity than Jobs too, given that he apparently had some kind of objection to it, which is sort of like having an objection to love and compassion. Or how about the time Jobs bribed the police to act like they were his private security agency, to kick down the front door to a journalist's home, seize his property and interrogate him like a criminal, just because of some crap iGadget accidentally lost by an Apple employee, after that journalist had already voluntarily contacted Apple and returned it to them?
So given the sort of monster Steve Jobs was, witnessing the spectacle of everyone from Joe Blogs to El Presidente gushing over him, like a bunch of schoolgirls at a rock concert, is absolutely sickening.
[...]
As for being a ‘visionary’ ... the only ‘vision’ Jobs ever had was the one he nicked from Xerox PARC. From that point forward he made a career out of shamelessly stealing others' ideas, shoehorning them into shiny but otherwise dysfunctional and DRM-infested toys, then branding an Apple logo on them (ironically also nicked, from the Beatles). And then to add insult to plagiarism, Jobs fraudulently stamped his ‘IP’ seal on those ‘shamelessly stolen’ ideas, then embarked on a hypocritical and vicious rampage of litigation. How's that for gratitude? Add that to the litany of virtues Jobs didn't subscribe to.
Paula Rooney chose another approach by doing PR for Mr. Jobs, essentially
openwashing him. Her colleague did something similar. In a more respectful post from SJVN and from
Muktware we find an openwashed Jobs
whose relationship with FOSS is at least being described as "complicated". To quote:
For whatever reason, Apple holds its secrets in a death grip. When new products are rolled out, developers are threatened with being removed from the program if they leak any information. Obviously, this seems over the top when you’re used to open source development and the collaboration that comes along with it.
Mr. Jobs was using patent monopolies to manipulate this market, so here at
Techrights we stopped being apathetic towards Apple some time last year (after Apple had filed
a lawsuit against HTC). Here is what Mr. Pogson
wrote about the disinformation we keep seeing in the media:
I am being inundated with wild claims of fans of Steve Jobs about how wonderful he was. The facts are a different patchwork:
* He invented the PC – Nope. Not even close. I still have a working PC from 1980. The Macintosh did not emerge until 1984.
* He invented the GUI – Nope. Not even close. He got the idea from Xerox who got it from … I was using crude GUIs in the 1970s and they were old then.
* He inspires inventors – Nope. Many inventive people don’t even bother because some bully like Apple will sue them for inventing something.
And about
the attack on Android he wrote:
The issues of patents is a house of cards soon to fall under its own weight. Samsung and Apple are in a mutually assured destruction battle and the same will happen to all the players unless patents are kicked out of software.
We
wrote about this case earlier and also mentioned the
likely demise of iPhone with the 4S. Apple has just lost a symbolic figure, not just a number or a brand.
People die every day. Over a hundred thousand of them. Even a celebrity
dies every day, but we are not seeing press releases from the White House issues for each one of them. What troubles us is that the death of a person not only became a media feeding frenzy (they are trying to monetise this death) but also an opportunity for revisionism because nobody is willing to say negative things about a person who has just died. Here at
Techrights we care about what's true, not just what's PC (politically correct). Jobs and Apple --
like Gates and Microsoft -- were copiers of other people's great ideas. They admitted this. So let's not give more credit than deserved just because of a tragic and undeserved death.
⬆
Comments
NotZed
2011-10-08 00:20:29
Might be news to you but steve 'big jobbie' jobs invented neither the mouse or the GUI, nor the portable music player, nor the computer-phone. My desktop looks and works much more like an Amiga than windows or macos.
They stole cups and webkit from free projects: they neither conceived them, inspired them, nor even brought them to a functioning state. Real innovation there. Even OpenCL was just a portable CUDA.
The only thing Jobs invented was a way to screw users out of their rights, price gouge them, and yet simultaneously make them feel like they were being done a huge favour. This makes him just another greedy sociopath and really quite unhealthy for society.
Good riddance to bad rubbish I say: generational change is the only hope to fix the mess we're in. He's just the first rotten skittle to fall: as they all must eventually.
(I didn't know him personally, nor even have some sort of bogus abusive 'relationship' by paying for any of his overpriced locked-down toys: therefore his death has less meaning to me than a starved-to-death child in africa or a blown up mother in afghanistan: at least their plight wasn't of their own doing).
Thousands of people die every day: he's just another fading memory and piece of dirt now like all the rest.
Dr. Roy Schestowitz
2011-10-08 00:30:08
"Indeed there were things Jobs did while at Apple that were deeply disturbing. Rude, dismissive, hostile, spiteful: Apple employees--the ones not bound by confidentiality agreements--have had a different story to tell over the years about Jobs and the bullying, manipulation and fear that followed him around Apple. Jobs contributed to global problems, too. Apple's success has been built literally on the backs of Chinese workers, many of them children and all of them enduring long shifts and the specter of brutal penalties for mistakes. And, for all his talk of enabling individual expression, Jobs imposed paranoid rules that centralized control of who could say what on his devices and in his company. [. . .] Before he was deposed from Apple the first time around, Jobs already had a reputation internally for acting like a tyrant. Jobs regularly belittled people, swore at them, and pressured them until they reached their breaking point. In the pursuit of greatness he cast aside politeness and empathy. His verbal abuse never stopped. Just last month Fortune reported about a half-hour "public humiliation" Jobs doled out to one Apple team ..."
More in:
What Everyone Is Too Polite to Say About Steve Jobs
Mind the fact that the troll is quoting me out of context to hide the intent, which was to taunt some fierce/militant Apple fans long before Jobs' death.
Dr. Roy Schestowitz
2011-10-08 00:46:30
"Along came the microprocessor, in the late 1960s and early 1970s. It was a device whose time had come. Before that one needed a rack full of transistors and crude integrated circuits to make a minicomputer (and lots of time and money populating them). Moore’s Law and not some corporation was the essential element to bring computing to the masses. Apple was just one of the flies attracted to the honey. The world was awash in software. It just had to be ported to the microprocessor and stuff happened. Apple did it. M$ did it. SUN did it. DEC did it. ARM did it. The fact that some grew, some died and some stagnated is just the chemistry of the markets and opportunities. Nothing special happened at Apple except that Apple managed to keep investors interested and cash flowing long enough while they figured it out.
"I can argue that Apple thrived in spite of Steve Jobs learning to be a business man on the job. In fact, Apple did not really thrive until Steve Jobs went out into the business world and learned a lot. He brought that back and made things happen.
"So, I don’t agree with RMS on all things and I don’t agree with SJVN on all things but in this case, I side with RMS. The evil Apple has done with Steve Jobs at the helm matters. For a time school children and teachers were widely exposed to Apple’s stuff. That made IT unaffordable for many schools. That negated the advantages of Moore’s Law for kids. Schools in which I taught took a decade to lose the Apple habit. Unfortunately, they acquired the M$ habit which was worse but some found GNU/Linux and it thrives in education.
"Fortunately for the world software freedom is a timeless idea and monopoly in IT eventually erodes just as mountains and continents do. Both M$ and Apple are diversifying because monopoly is not sustainable and the poor are finally having access to IT thanks to Moore’s Law and Free Software, not monopoly."
I will try to keep all the Jobs updates here. No need for multiple separate posts, but those who defame Apple critics will carry on for days (abusing Apple critics).
Dr. Roy Schestowitz
2011-10-08 00:58:17
Brilliant, yes, but he wasn't an Einstein http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2046237/Steve-Jobs-dead-Brilliant-yes-wasnt-Einstein.html?ito=feeds-newsxml
"President Obama was unequivocal: ‘The world has lost a visionary,’ he said. Who had died? The Pope? The Dalai Lama? A great poet or artist? No. It was the pioneer of Apple. [...] Fundamentally, the world is the same as it was before Steve Jobs. He was simply a clever backroom boy who got lucky. The most important person on the planet? Pull the other one."
This Dianamania is a slur on Jobs http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/10/07/steve_jobs_dianamania/
"The late Norman Borlaug prevented a billion deaths by applying the scientific method to the traditional scattergun approach to crop selection and breeding, creating the "green revolution". India used to have famines 40 years ago – now it exports grain. There are fewer conflicts in the world as a consequence. Woman have more reproductive freedom. These are incredible achievements – and earned Borlaug the Nobel Peace Prize. But he received no such adulation, and even earned a few sneers in some obituaries."
There are more of these. Like me, they waited a couple of days before criticising the man. Balance is important.
Michael
2011-10-08 01:45:34
> Brilliant, yes, but he wasn’t an Einstein
I think that is a fair thing to say. It is a big step up from your past claims where you were openly lying about him and mocking his illness.
> He was simply a clever backroom boy who got lucky.
I suppose the same can be said of any influential person on the planet.
> The most important person on the planet?
And here you are being silly.
As far as there being other very influential people - absolutely. And many who do not get the recognition they diserve. Heck, I can even see saying you think the media is over-playing this. Fine.
It is your lies I find bothersome - not your differences in opinion.
> Like me, they waited a couple of days before criticising > the man. Balance is important.
And this is an out and out lie from you, Roy. Even before he died you were mocking the man for his illness and otherwise spewing vile into public forums. Again: differences in opinion are fine - but your lies are, in my view, not (not that I expect you to stop lying).
Michael
2011-10-08 01:12:25
But nothing Steve Jobs has done - that I have heard of - comes close to what your cult-god Stallman has said in terms of sexuality and kids. That is just repulsive and you give him a complete pass. Let us not pretend you are looking at this side of Jobs rationally - you are not. You are lashing out at him over your own need to justify your extreme biases.
As far as Chinese workers, from what I have read Apple worked harder than Dell or HP or others to make sure the workers who built their products were treated relatively well. Not well by western standards. But, again, you irrationally single out Apple and make it seem like they are the cause of the world's problems.
There are many things one can say that are negative about Apple and Jobs... I encourage you to look at those *honestly*, a big change for you, and to also be thankful for the massive amount of positive influence Apple and Jobs had on the tech industry.
Are you able to be honest.. or will you continue to do as you admit and lie about Jobs to get responses from people who are opposed to such dishonesty?
Michael
2011-10-08 00:58:42
Note your straw men of implying anyone said Jobs invented the mouse, GUI, portable music player and "computer phone".
When you feel the need to do that it is clear you are struggling to make a point.
> They stole cups and webkit from free projects:
This is incorrect. They stole neither.
> they neither conceived them, inspired them, nor even > brought them to a functioning state. Real innovation > there. Even OpenCL was just a portable CUDA.
Note your straw man of implying Apple created CUPS and WebKit (well, they did create WebKit, but it was based on KHTML).
> The only thing Jobs invented was a way to screw users out of > their rights, price gouge them, and yet simultaneously make them > feel like they were being done a huge favour. This makes him just > another greedy sociopath and really quite unhealthy for society.
Interesting you admit you cannot think of how Jobs and Apple have had a massive influence on desktop computing, smart phones, the music industry, music players, tablets, etc.
Information on this is flooding the news right now - no need to repeat it here. I do suggest, however, that you work to educate yourself on this before you make such claims.
> Good riddance to bad rubbish I say: generational change is the > only hope to fix the mess we’re in. He’s just the first rotten > skittle to fall: as they all must eventually.
I get the grapes are sour.
> (I didn’t know him personally, nor even have some sort of bogus > abusive ‘relationship’ by paying for any of his overpriced > locked-down toys: therefore his death has less meaning to me than > a starved-to-death child in africa or a blown up mother in > afghanistan: at least their plight wasn’t of their own doing). > > Thousands of people die every day: he’s just another fading > memory and piece of dirt now like all the rest.
Again: I understand how you are ignorant of his influence. Given how much information I am sure you have seen in the last few days which shows how absurd this is, my repeating it is not going to help you.
But you are free to be ignorant of Jobs and Apple's influence. Have a great day!
NotZed
2011-10-09 10:20:48
He was a greedy, nasty piece of work.
And now he's dead just like eveyone else will be one day.
Fan-bloody-tastic is all i have to say, the hens always come to roost. Eventually.
Needs Sunlight
2011-10-09 10:41:10
Michael
2011-10-09 15:00:13
It is a shame. Open source software is amazing... but when false "advocates" pretend the only way to support open source is to lie about others you make those of us who really do support open source in a reasoned way look bad. We are grouped with your cult.
Michael
2011-10-07 20:55:33
I bet the answer to several of those questions is yes. It does not matter if Roy is using an Apple product - if he is using something in any of those catagories he is using a tool that was, in large part, inspired by what Jobs and Apple brought to the world.
This includes KDE and Gnome. This includes Android. This includes any product that uses WebKit or CUPS. Roy simply shows no sign of getting this. Roy is a man who pretends to know about technology and be able to speak about it, but when push comes to shove he shows no understanding of the inspirations of those who create the tools he uses. If you look at what these folks in the open source community say of Apple and Steve Jobs, you will find they, for the most part, get it. Shuttleworth gets it. Sergey Brin gets it. Larry Page gets it. Everyone who is tried to the technology industry gets it.
Except for you Roy. You and your cult-god Stallman who makes gross comments about Job's death and even worst comments about kids and sex. You recently admitted,Roy, that you post repulsive things about Steve Jobs simply to get attention. Well, it shows. Here are some of those things you have said:
Roy's article title:
Linux Wins, Steve Jobs Flees
And when he was told how tasteless that was: It was Jobs himself who said he would leave when he no longer does a good job running Apple.
And then: If they give him an enema, they'll be able to bury him in a matchbox. ;-)
And then: > Maybe Steve Jobs is dying of guilt. Good one...
And then: Knock knock Who's there? Liver delivery for Steve.
What a reprehensible and hateful person you are, Roy... you are filled with hate and jealousy to those who really make a positive difference in the world. How sad the best you can do is lie about Steve Jobs to try to get attention.
Ricardo
2011-10-08 00:43:52
> Does Roy use a desktop computer?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_computer
> A smart phone?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smartphone
> Does he listen to music? Does he ever buy music?
Is S.Jobs the compositor of all the music that we listen? If it is he must be a God.
I bought some vinyl and cd's discs... when they are playing what am I listen?
> Does Roy have a tablet computer?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tablet_computer
> (...) he is using a tool that was, in large part, inspired by what Jobs and Apple brought to the world.
I can belive people belive it.
Do you know that history is full of some take credits for the work of others.
Dr. Roy Schestowitz
2011-10-08 00:49:52
"For the anti-Linux nuts who don't understand that statement (because they think like consumers who can't see beyond the "desktop"), they should consider this:
"How many enterprise and embedded market products benefit from anything ever made by Apple?
"In fact, how much of what we do with computers, or even generic consumer devices, today is in any way dependent on Apple?
"Now, answer those same questions for Free Software.
"Apple isn't a technology company, it's a fashion statement."
Michael
2011-10-08 01:05:50
Open source software has also made a massive influence and those who have worked in that area deserve plenty of credit; Apple included. But it is not a competition between the two - both can do great things.
Sadly, Roy, you and yours have such little faith in what you claim to beleive in you feel the need to lie and belittle others for no other reason than to try to feel better about yourself. It is sad.
I mean, really, for you to claim "Apple is not a technology company" is beyond absurd and clearly inaccurate. You claim to have an understanding of the tech industry, but here you are denying one of the largest and most influential tech companies in history even is a tech company.
This shows you are quite ignorant of the industry. It would be like denying Ford is a car company. Just absurd.
Even with open source software, you have proved to be amazingly ignorant, such as when you made claims about PCLOS which were trivial to prove incorrect (related because you were comparing PCLOS to OS X).
Michael
2011-10-08 00:52:23
Irrelevant links to and straw men such as speaking about Jobs as "compositor of all the music". Utter silliness.
I wonder if he can actually respond to my post.
In any case, nobody said Jobs or Apple were the only ones with influence. Your point, I think, is to agree with the idea that are not. OK. Right. How does that reduce Jobs' nor Apple's massive contributions to multiple industries.
Ricardo
2011-10-08 00:52:44
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CUPS
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WebKit
Dr. Roy Schestowitz
2011-10-08 01:00:25
WebKit: Bastardisation of KHTML (KDE).
Techrights has many articles about Apple falsely taking "open source" credit.
Michael
2011-10-08 01:20:40
Your argument against Apple is irrational.
But CUPS under Apple has been modified a fair amount and WebKit is very much different than the KHTML engine it came from. WebKit has become the biggest web browsing engine...
And let us not forget that the web itself was built from the object oriented tools of NeXT. Without Jobs and NeXT, would the web even exist as we know it? How many years later would something like it have been developed?
You have a website, Roy - at least you can acknowledge the fact NeXT was influential in the history of developing that. Right? You know, without taking away any credit from TBL and others who deserve massive credit for their work.
Wait: Roy. No. You cannot be honest about that. Doing so would go against your cult. Honesty goes against your cult.
Michael
2011-10-08 01:37:45
"Some more links to Michael, since this info is very difficult to find, since S.Jobs didn’t invent Google, he doesn’t use it."
I do not know what search engine Jobs' used, but Google is used as the default for Safari (at one point other options were not even available. The idea that Jobs would not be using Google, without any evidence from you, is absurd to the extreme. Just silly.
Also: I am glad you have learned to use Wikipedia. Not sure why you are showing it off here. Curious - do you have a point to make?
Michael
2011-10-08 01:15:48
How many of these deaths are covered like Jobs? How many people / companies have made such a difference on so many technologies?
Again: there is no doubt, Roy, you use products which have benefitted from Apple's influence. You support Android which borrows massively from iOS (it is likely it would not exist without it - not in any form even recognizable as Android). Same thing with KDE, which you admit you use, and Gnome. These things would almost surely not exist in anything like their current form without Apple and Jobs.
But you cannot admit to this - it would go against your cult.
BenderBendingRodriguez
2011-10-08 10:41:48
NotZed
2011-10-09 10:24:28
Celebrities - my arse, just because some idiot wants to talk about some other meaninless piece of shit hardly makes them a celebrity.
Again you deny that the entire hardware and software industry has manage to advance despite both steve 'big jobbie' (i.e. piece of shit) jobsian jobs, and bill 'fuckwit' gates. Well, each to his own I suppose.
Michael
2011-10-09 15:04:21
Jobs was not a part of the Stallman cult. Thus Roy and his Techright followers hate him.
Hey, here is a test: who in the modern technology world but *outside* of the open source movement do you respect?
I bet nobody. You live in a very, very small world where only those in your cult are worthy of respect.
Needs Sunlight
2011-10-08 10:16:23
Needs Sunlight
2011-10-08 10:27:09
BenderBendingRodriguez
2011-10-08 10:37:00
Dr. Roy Schestowitz
2011-10-08 14:45:48
In a way, Glasser is a useful idiot because he is amplifying Techrights. We need to find him new hobby/pastime.
Michael
2011-10-08 17:38:16
You had me on your show and were relatively polite, but then started posting lies about me in public forums. You admitted you were posting absurd lies just to be provocative toward people you like to call names. So I responded by posting the truth.
The fact is you know if I were to be on your show again you would be asked about:
* Your lies about my experience with KDE * Your errors about older KDE/PCLOS * Your errors about newer KDE/PCLOS * Your incorrect claims about MS and the Ribbon UI
Etc. Yes, I would ask you about your obvious errors and lies. And you have *no* response - so you dodge and you lie. You whine about my site being anti-you, though there is nothing there that says it is (actually, I make it clear that is *not* the case). I am pro-truth... and since you are anti-truth you feel prosecuted. Oh well.
How about this: if you have me on your show and actually try to answer the questions I have for you, I will remove my Techrights Watch site. It will be down forever. Not like I have even updated it in a while - as I said at the start it was not meant to last long, just a way for me to have fun and get into the habit of blogging (that did not last long!)
So why not stand up for what you believe and tell me voice-to-voice how wrong I am? Why not come up with some great examples and humiliate me on your show? You are, after all, in the right... right? You know the facts are on your side... right? You have nothing to run from... right?
LOL! Of course you will run - not even you believe your BS. You know you were busted lying and showing off your ignorance about KDE/PCLOS - even compared to me, who had never used the current version of PCLOS. Oh and here is the proof of that:
http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/PCLOS-OSX-comparison.pdf
And, of course, I am happy to provide direct quotes from you where you were simply showing your ignorance of PCLOS:
Snit: 24:45 ----- When you have "Save" on the left and "Save" on the right - people click on the wrong button. And it's user error - that's what it's called - but it's not; it's an error of the system. [About older PCLOS] looking at its default programs ... and there is a mish mash [quit/exit, save dialog with "Save" on left or right] ----- Roy: 25:32 ----- I've used it before and I don't think it's true what you are saying now. -----
And:
Snit: 32:28: ----- [Of the newest PCLOS] I will post - I will make screenshots or maybe even a quick video and we can look at it. Now I haven't used the newest one ... but let me look at PC Linux and I can pretty much guarantee you there will be a mix of quit and exit, there will be a mix of hot keys, there will be a mix of save dialogs, there will be a mix of print dialogs, ... some programs will lose the clipboard when you quit some programs won't... ----- Roy: 33:15 ----- [talks about how development happens... ] Interesting that you raise this point ... when you are using something like a file dialog you might say that will be inconsistent but that is just not true ... the way it works in KDE I would be quite surprised if it is very inconsistent. I would be very happy if you found some cases where it's not consistent - maybe even help developers. -----
Anyway, have a good day running from facts you cannot handle - you can always just lie more about me and bask in the reaction of your fellow cult members.
BenderBendingRodriguez
2011-10-08 17:55:16
Michael
2011-10-08 18:20:42
BenderBendingRodriguez
2011-10-08 18:31:13
Dr. Roy Schestowitz
2011-10-08 18:33:10
Michael
2011-10-08 18:53:38
> That’s true but you easily omit the root of the problem which is > that firefox uses different toolkit (xulrunner), kde is using > different and gtk applications are using different, that is the > price of freedom on linux box and golden cage of mac os x where > you just don’t have a choice and must conform to apple’s way. If > we were using qt only on linux we would have the same consistency > but we are not using qt only.
Shuttleworth has said much the same:
Question: ----- What do you see as the main obstacles holding back the success of the Linux desktop? ----- Shuttleworth: ----- I think we don't yet deliver a good enough user experience. I think we deliver a user experience for people that have a reason to want to be on the Linux platform, either because of price or because of freedom. If that was your primary reason, Linux is the right answer.
But if you are somebody who is not too concerned about price, who is not too concerned about freedom, I don't think we can say the Linux desktop offers the very best experience. And that's something we have to change, that's something I'm committed to work on, focusing increasing amounts of resources of Canonical on figuring out on how we actually move the desktop experience forward to compete with Mac OS X. -----
I have nothing against people using desktop Linux - for any reason. Two of the main reasons are price and the license, and if you value those over usability then desktop Linux is clearly the right choice for you. Absolutely.
I tend to value usability. Just a different focus. Neither "side" here is wrong.
BenderBendingRodriguez
2011-10-08 18:37:57
Michael
2011-10-08 18:55:09
It is not like I excuse the Windows environment for its weaknesses, either.
Michael
2011-10-08 19:02:32
LOL! What the heck? Just insane. So, no, despite Roy dishonestly pretending I ignore Windows problems (or OS X, I have examples there, too), I am very well aware of the problems on other platforms.
But, as I quoted above, Roy makes claims about Linux (in this case KDE/PCLOS) which are easy to show are wrong. He just is not willing to admit to his ignorance.
BenderBendingRodriguez
2011-10-08 19:18:18
Dr. Roy Schestowitz
2011-10-08 19:33:53
Michael
2011-10-08 20:49:13
Stallman went out of his way to make open source supporters look bad. This is contrary to advocacy of open source.
Nobody is denying other people die. I have no idea why you keep changing the topic. Well, I do - you know you have made a complete idiot of yourself in terms of Jobs - even going so far as to say he resigned as CEO because of a lawsuit. That was just absurd.
----- Roy's article title: Linux Wins, Steve Jobs Flees ----- And when he was told how tasteless that was: It was Jobs himself who said he would leave when he no longer does a good job running Apple. ----- And then: If they give him an enema, they'll be able to bury him in a matchbox. ;-) ----- And then: > Maybe Steve Jobs is dying of guilt. Good one... ----- And even:
Knock knock Who's there? Liver delivery for Steve. -----
You, too, go out of your way to make supporters of open source look stupid, ignorant, and unbelievably insensitive. You are a small step about the idiots who picket funerals - or do you support that as well?
Michael
2011-10-08 20:54:13
Steve Jobs was able to take ideas an integrate them and improve them to make usable products. His influence is felt on many industries and there is hardly anyone in the developed world who has not benefitted from his work. This is not to say he is the only one who has contributed, but the fact people admire him for his work is completely fine with me.
There are also many who do not really understand the technology industry who could not care less about Steve Jobs. Great. I do not care much about sports - when a great sports figure dies, no matter how influential he / she was to sports, I generally do not really care (not to say I sink to the depths of Stallman and Schestowitz and all but celebrate the death - that is just grotesque).
Notice how Roy has not responded to the idea of me being on his show again. At one point he directly invited me but now he runs - he knows in a medium where running is much harder he would have *no* leg to stand on.
BenderBendingRodriguez
2011-10-08 19:41:15
Dr. Roy Schestowitz
2011-10-08 20:23:19
Amid rabid attacks on Richard Stallman, Swapnil Bhartiya responds to disinformation:
"Essentially, he is someone who is working hard to keep users free from the clutches of evil corporates. His fight is not easy, and that's why corporate media and pseudo Linux 'experts' hate him. [...] Bloggers twisted his statement as if he was being disrespectful to Jobs, which is incorrect. First, RMS is totally correct when he attributed Steve Jobs as the creator of a jail. There is no disrespect here. It's reality. Bloggers also seem to have missed that RMS was quoting Chicago Mayor Harold Washington who in-fact said this about the corrupt former Mayor Daley, "I'm not glad he's dead, but I'm glad he's gone." I repeat, this is *not* an statement made by RMS, this statement was made by Chicago Mayor Harold Washington. RMS just quoted him here. And there is a lot of respect for the dead person in that quote of Mayor Washington. [...] The problem is RMS is NOT insensitive here. He has been very careful while sharing is opinion without crossing any line.
The second sentence has been blown out of proportion where those bloggers can't see that RMS did not say that he was happy that Steve Jobs is dead. It might have been wrong if RMS said he is happy that Jobs is dead.
RMS was in-fact very sensitive here and one can see that clearly in his statement, "Nobody deserves to have to die - not Jobs, not Mr. Bill, not even people guilty of bigger evils than theirs."
RMS is not an ordinary person, he is the one who has written the smartest software license in the world, one needs to be careful while interpreting his statements. He is not a salesperson who says things to make the customer happy. When he says something, it holds a lot of weight and you have to process every word carefully, ignoring this advice would lead to the same mistakes those bloggers made. I interpret RMS's words as "Jobs did not deserve to have to die even if he was causing damage to the world." These are strong words and show how sensitive RMS has been even if he has strong opinions about Jobs' business model. [...] We must not forget, there are things which are more important than an individual, no matter how rich or powerful they are. Freedom is one of those thing. It outweighs any individual by tons."
Michael
2011-10-08 21:06:37
Linux and open source are amazing - they can stand on their own as examples of excellence without attacking those who are not drinking the Kool-Aid.
Linus Torvalds gets this. So does Shuttleworth. Both are excellent examples of people who advocate Linux and OSS very well.
You and Stallman are jealous and filled with fear and hate. This comes across in your every post, Roy, and it makes open source supporters look bad. Folks such as myself, who are true advocate of open source, are grouped together with your bile...
This does not mean I think you should be censored - but I do think more *real* advocates should stand up to your false "advocate" FUD. Those who look into Linux and OSS should see that there are people such as myself who admire and use open source daily who also are able to be honest about it and appreciate the strengths and weaknesses of the different solutions that are available.
NotZed
2011-10-09 10:26:19
Least of all someone who has dedicated his live to defending software freedom?
Michael
2011-10-08 21:00:17
Steve did understand human psychology, art, etc. very well. That was one of his main strengths - he was able to take ideas from many diverse areas in human experience (and build teams with the experience) and use that combined knowledge to make things which were better suited to tasks. So many in the tech industry look at the technology first and then try to figure out what to do with it (those are the people who obsess over stats and benchmarks). Apple certainly recognizes those figures, but the primary way of looking at things is to find problems and look to see if technology can solve them.
This, of course, is not 100%. Things are not so black and white - it is not as if nobody else in the industry looks at problems to solve! But Apple does this better than anyone, and that is largely because of Steve Jobs. Apple did not have the first smart phone - but few deny they turned the industry upside down. Apple did not have the first tablet - but they turned that upside down as well. Without Apple, keep in mind, Android would not exist as we know it. It is, obviously, largely Google's attempt to recreate a similar experience. This does not mean, of course, that as they design their OS they do not do some things differently or better.
As far as being overpriced - almost all comparisons find Apple products to be about the same price as similar devices from other developers. The myth of them charging too much *for what you get* is not supported by facts.
Michael
2011-10-09 15:01:53
No desktop Linux distro. No server distro.
So who has? NotZed runs in 3... 2... 1...
Dr. Roy Schestowitz
2011-10-08 22:58:08
The Other Steve Jobs: Censorship, Control and Labor Rights
Here are some excerpts:
"The death of Steve Jobs has rocked people the world over, affecting everyone from the most hardcore Apple fanboy to Barack Obama to all those gathered outside the new Apple store in Shanghai. While Steve Jobs will be remembered for revolutionizing personal computing, the music industry, consumer mobile products, film animation and even fonts, the other side of his legacy is one of hyper-control: Apple's proprietary software, the iPhone's closed-off ecology, App Store censorship and the company's labor law violations. If there was ever a company that capitalized on American consumers languishing in late-stage capitalism, it was Apple. And they did it by inventing "cool" products that we didn't even know we needed - till we needed them."
"Not long after that, in October 2010, Apple was awarded a patent that could stop people from sending "objectionable" text messages. It was filed in January 2008, and approved on October 12, 2010, and would allow certain content to be filtered based on parental controls. While it might seem like Apple is trying to keep its devices safe from porn, and therefore more workplace and school-friendly, this was still one step closer toward authoritarian control over the iPhone."
"In 2008, the Advertising Standards Authority responded to two British TV viewers who claimed that a TV ad featuring a voiceover that said "all parts of the Internet are on the iPhone" was misleading because the iPhone didn't support Flash or Java. The ad was found to breach CAP (Broadcast) TV Advertising Standards Code rules 5.1 (Misleading advertising), 5.2.1 (Evidence) and 5.2.2 (Implications), and could not be broadcast again."
"Inhumane treatment of workers first came to light when seven workers at the Foxconn plant committed suicide in May 2010. They were working on the iPad production sector. After these suicides, workers were required to sign a statement that says they are not allowed to commit suicide."
They left out some more important incidents, but Jobs' role in them is not entirely clear, either.
Michael
2011-10-08 23:07:09
Yes, he will. By people who know about technology. This, sadly, does not include you, Roy.
Frankly the whining about Apple's approach to malware reduction is absurd - it is what allows iOS to be almost completely malware free while Android, Google's attempt to copy iOS, is riddled with malware. The other complaints are even more absurd: people blame Apple for the low conditions of Chinese workers - when *all* the major hardware makers use those workers and Apple does more than most to better their lot. And then whining about patents which give people control over what messages they see? Cry me a river.
You, Roy, are filled with jealousy and rage over a man who is clearly your better. So be it. It is not like you can defend your comments - hence the reason you run from having conflicting ideas asked of you on your show.
Dr. Roy Schestowitz
2011-10-09 01:05:24
Also new: Celebrate Heroes, Not CEOs
"Heroes still exist – they always have done. It’s just that the mass media would rather we didn’t know about them. Instead, they give us corporate heroes, CEOs, men who change the world – but not necessarily for the better. We need to be more selective about who we hero-worship. The power to write real heroes back into history is in our hands."
Michael
2011-10-09 04:27:24
I am saddened at his death and realize that it will affect the world by a lack of his creativity and innovative spirit that affected so many, but that does not make him a "hero".
Then again, the people I look at as "heroes" are generally not well known - those people who focus a lot on their families and the like. if others want to see Jobs as a hero, I have no problem with that. It is not like he is complete and utter scum like your hero, Stallman. And, yes, you obviously see the man as a "hero", even with his repulsive comments on sexuality and kids.
So call Jobs a hero or not - fine with me. But Stallman is clearly a villain. With your worshipping of such a massively repulsive human being, you can hardly complain about other's personal heroes. Well, not with any credibility.
NotZed
2011-10-09 10:27:16
He was a real hero.
Dr. Roy Schestowitz
2011-10-09 10:32:16
Dr. Roy Schestowitz
2011-10-09 10:31:59
"Windows reboots everyday... to pay their tribute to Steve Jobs."
http://www.muktware.com/blogs/2613
Android 4.0 Launch Canceled, To Honor Steve Jobs
http://www.muktware.com/news/261
Reading dishonest headlines, one gets the false impression Richard Stallman was happy about a death. He said the very opposite. Twice.
Steve Jobs: Good artists copy great artists steal
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CW0DUg63lqU
People who want to incite against Richard Stallman simply omit the beginning of his sentences. See for instance:
http://www.macgasm.net/2011/10/07/richard-stallman-steve-jobs-glad/
From GNU:
http://assets.cubbi.es/uploads/496d75eb-ddb3-48f8-8963-865120a99438.jpg
Michael
2011-10-09 15:30:05
He made his dispicable comments about Jobs and, again, proved he had no class and is a miserable face for any organiztion. I am happy the media is, even if only slightly, covering this.
https://www.readwriteweb.com/enterprise/2011/10/why-fsf-founder-richard-stallm.php
----- "It's time for free software to find a new voice. Once again, Free Software Foundation founder Richard Stallman is putting his feet firmly in his mouth. This time, Stallman says that he's glad Steve Jobs is gone.
"It's no secret that RMS and Steve Jobs held firmly opposed views when it comes to software freedom. I didn't expect Stallman to hold a vigil at an Apple store for Jobs, or even to say much of anything at all. But his ill-considered response does nothing for the cause of free software, and actually does a lot of damage. ... "Though I've often disagreed with the tone and language of Stallman's commentary on closed devices, he makes good points about software freedom. But his latest, posthumous, attack on Jobs demonstrates that Stallman has no business being spokesperson of anything. ... "This is, unfortunately, typical of Stallman – and exactly why the self-appointed leader of the free software movement is the last person who should be spokesperson for anything. He manages to offend common decency by celebrating the absence of a man who contributed enormously to the world of computing, and insult millions of Apple users simultaneously. But I see no argument whatsoever here to persuade Jobs' fans that they should be considering free software. Just a petty expression of relief that a rival is no longer available to compete with Stallman's cause." -----
Almost exactly what I have been saying. Stallman is not fit to be a spokesperson for *anything*. Stallman is utter scum. And the article even offers a way Stallman could have made a reasonable post:
----- "If Stallman had to make a statement emphasizing his dislike of Jobs' influence, he could still have done so respectfully. Consider this; "I didn't share Steve Jobs' vision of computing, and I wish he'd chosen to embrace free software. I'm very sorry that he's gone and we've lost the opportunity to have that conversation. My sympathies are with his family at this time." There's no need to pretend that Stallman liked Jobs, but his post is contemptible.
"Even if you accept Stallman's world-views on free software and ethics about software licensing, we shouldn't be "glad he's gone." Jobs's work has inspired a lot of free software developers over the years, and he and his teams at Apple set a bar for excellence that more developers should aspire to." -----
The article is brillian and correct. And thus you *must* disagree with it. You are against such traits. But that is not the only article noting how repulsive Stallman is:
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/open-source/free-software-founder-richard-m-stallman-is-glad-jobs-is-gone/9707 ----- "I’m glad to say that the vast majority of open-source developers don’t agree with Stallman’s myopic views. Yes, free software is important. Yes, the GPL was essential for the creation of the modern technology world which runs on such open-source projects as Linux, the Apache Web server, and the MySQL databases. But we also know that Jobs was also essential to our modern computing world. Jobs was our generation’s Disney, its Edison. The bottom line is almost everyone I know in open-source circles admired Jobs. RMS is the exception not the rule.
"By choosing to use the occasion of Jobs’ death for one more public jab at proprietary software, Stallman did neither his personal causes nor the larger ones of free and open-source software any good." -----
Absolutely correct.
> Steve Jobs: Good artists copy great artists steal > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CW0DUg63lqU
You love to quote this. Completely out of context. Here is the full quote:
----- "We have always been shameless about stealing great ideas. And I think part of what made the Macintosh was that the people working on it were musicians and poets and artists and zoologists and historians who also happened to be the best computer scientists in the world." -----
Jobs is not talking about stealing ideas from competitors; he is talking about taking ideas from many fields of human knowledge and using them to make the best products you can.
Dr. Roy Schestowitz
2011-10-10 10:54:10
Also see:
Steve Jobs, Control Freak http://www.goodbyemicrosoft.net/news.php?item.673.4
Michael
2011-10-10 13:33:38
And with the second, even there they admit "Yes: Jobs was an accomplished businessman, a brilliant marketer, and had an eye both for style and the importance of style."
But, yes, Roy: Jobs was not a cartoon character - he was a complex man with many good *and* bad qualities. And, yes, over the next few weeks people will speak a lot of both - when his biography comes out it may very well start another smaller "firestorm". And his biography will contain the bad with the good.
But that is not the same as what you and Stallman and your cult do - that is not the same as attacking a man simply because you are a hate-filled, scared and jealous man. And, face it, it is very clear that is exactly what you are.
Jose_X
2011-10-11 19:18:35
You aren't?
I mean we all show hate and jealousy, yet I think anyone reading here will see that both Roy and you are very passionate about various things and can argue reasons besides "hate" and "jealousy".
Also, Michael, some parts of your comments are rather aggressive against Stallman. Zeroing in on that paragraph quote which has the mayor's quote inside, Stallman says he does not wish anyone harm/death. He simultaneously states (without as much tact as shown by the one author criticizing him that you quoted) that he believes it is a good thing that Jobs' influence over the future course of tech will be diminished in some ways. You can disagree but that hardly makes him so crazy or insensitive. Plenty of people dislike any one firm having so much control and leveraging software and hardware lock-in and feel very threatened by the thought hardware makers could collude to end the concept of fairly flexible competitive hardware controllable by third party software.
Roy, I think this article has lines in it (and I haven't been reading most things about Jobs or Apple) that many people would find to be insensitive. To you and to most people (like myself) Jobs might not have practically been a real live human being we could influence or be any more alive than an ordinary movie clip we might see from time to time, but the fact is that he was. Talking about him gone (and he is/was a human being) in certain ways at times does little positive (in the eyes of many I would guess) for any positive message you want to express.
I don't think Jobs saved the world or anything, but the iharware were some good steps in usability (if foreshadowed by the ideas of many for many decades) in an inevitable progress to squeeze more from smaller items. He was aggressive and skillful and was lucky to live at a lucky time and in a land that rewards such individuals handsomely. He probably wasn't a wicked person in any real sense of that phrase. Like Michael said, he had positives and negatives. He probably shared joy of wonder and surprise and of achievement along with millions as Apple rolled out certain products ahead of the competition. A lot of people probably empathized with him in many ways and are saddened.
I don't think the dislike many have for DRM or closed source or other things should be linked so closely with a non-evil person that recently passed away. I respect you may really not like him because of the power he wielded in ways you don't like, but most people are practical. If you want to be idealist, you probably don't have to mention Jobs much at all. It's easy to focus on Apple. If you want to be practical, appearing to beat up on a dead person is not very practical advocacy for something positive.
Michael
2011-10-11 20:18:00
Nope. Thanks for asking. :)
----- > I mean we all show hate and jealousy, yet I think > anyone reading here will see that both Roy and you > are very passionate about various things and can > argue reasons besides “hate” and “jealousy”. -----
You have hit upon my biggest complaint with Roy: not that he believes differently - I think it would be boring if we all agreed. But he does not argue with reason. Some examples:
1) I showed him some videos and screenshots of KDE that I made, based on my own experience. The media files were made to support a point. Roy completely ignored the point and then lied that I based my view of KDE on these media files... as if I had merely found them somewhere. When faced with this he ran. He as completely irrational.
2) Roy made claims about current KDE/PCLOS. I admitted I had never used it - but made some educated guesses as to how it would be. Roy insisted I was wrong. I downloaded the distro and played with it - and while I was not completely right (thankfully! PCLOS has advanced more than I expected it to) Roy was further from being right.
3) I made comments about older PCLOS - and Roy told me I was wrong. I pointed him to the media files that prove I am correct - and he just ignores this.
I can provide direct quotes even with approximate time stamps from my interview with Roy and all media files to back these things up. I argue with reason and evidence - and Roy shuns this and responds by lying about me. When I was on his show he was quite civil and he earned my respect - even though we disagreed with each other (disagreement is not a reason to not respect someone!). His subsequent lying and running from all evidence has shown what poor character he has. Even now, though, I welcome giving Roy a chance to do the right thing and acknowledge / apologize for his lies about me and to "correct" my comments about PCLOS and the like. Heck, I would welcome a chance to be on his show again and will guarantee I would be quite civil toward him (even if the debate became heated, which it might). Let Roy show the world where my above claims are wrong - if he really thinks they are. But Roy is not going to do that. Not even Roy really beleives what Roy says.
About Stallman: his comments about Jobs were (at best) very poorly worded and many folks have noted how this has proved (again) what a poor face he is for the open source movement. I have noted how Linus Torvalds and Mark Shuttleworth are both excellent faces (even if you do not use Ubuntu) - it is not as if I am against folks in the open source world speaking up or "selling" their software or ideas. I think that is great and I join in with that desire (I hand out Mint media, for example). So, sure, Stallman made a misstep with his comment - but it is hardly the most offensive thing he has said (that would be his comments about kids and sexuality, at least to me).
As far as Jobs: I have no problem with people speaking of his downsides - and he had many. Heck, there are a number of stories about his early days when he out and out ripped of Woz. Completely inexcusable. And if you do not like his view on technology, fine... though I would prefer people be honest about it and not makes things... and at least try to back their claims and views. I do not mind if people disagree.
I find your comments about Jobs to be completely reasonable. Just a note: you speak of DRM - Jobs had a big influence on getting the music industry to move away from DRM. Here was his open letter to the industry: http://www.apple.com/es/hotnews/thoughtsonmusic
And yet, even though the evidence shows otherwise, Roy quotes and supports claims of Apple selling "DRM infested toys". These "toys" and the market Apple built around them - and the influence Apple had by doing so - is largely what pushed DRM out of the market. Apple is a large part of the reason DRM on music is largely a thing of the past. Those who support open formats and interoperability should be thankful for Jobs/Apple - not openly attacking them for working within the system to change it.
Jose_X
2011-10-11 20:52:07
Stallman is not "the" face of the "open source movement". He is a major face of the sort of views about software that led to the FSF's work and to the GPL (ie, "free software). His face is not important. Many people respect a lot of his writings and many core parts of his views in many areas related to user control and software freedom. Many people respect those views or their gist despite not agreeing on everything with Stallman and recognizing he doesn't present the most marketable face (figurative and literal) for "open source" and maybe not even for "free software".. at least if we are to judge by volume of consumer reactions.
From what I remember, I agree somewhat with what you said about Jobs and DRM, but it's not clear to me that DRM would have been successful for Jobs when it hasn't been for many others.
Apple probably is a lot better about standards than is Microsoft; however, I wouldn't put them at the top of any list in terms of those working towards open standards and/or open source.
I agree this website is confrontational. I share with Roy a lot of "key" views wrt freedom from powerful vendors and abuse of IP laws and some other things, but I do think his approach isn't always pretty or desirable .. but, like you said, we can't all agree on everything. I do appreciate he covers a lot of these topics in a lot more detail than you might find in other places. I see it as a "blog" to allow himself to vent and get ideas down for the public. I don't think he is as careful as he could be, but I also find sloppiness with comments attacking him or the articles. In general, there is too much attacking of people for my tastes. Although, many find this feature useful.
I would probably agree with you on a fair amount, but, when I drop by, your comments do oftentimes defend a little too much some things I don't like. The combative environment here is part of that reason, I can believe.
Michael
2011-10-11 21:29:32
The conversation I am talking about is his show:
http://techrights.org/TechBytes/techbytes0056.mp3
And some comments about it:
http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/RoyTopics.txt
That follows the three things I noted:
1) Roy out and out lying about me. 2) Roy and I making comments about newer PCLOS 3) Roy and I making comments about older PCLOS
And, unmentioned before:
4) Roy commenting on MS patents on the Ribbon UI
Roy has repeatedly attacked me on those issues and/or lied and said he has fully responded to them and then sank to insults and accusations. I think you will be hard pressed to find flaw with my analysis of his comments and mine, but I welcome comments. Even more I would love to see Roy try to respond to those.
The fact he made such errors, though, is what pushed him to taking back his invitation to have me on the show again. He knows he has no honest response and the facts are contrary to his narrative.
> Stallman is not “the” face of the “open source > movement”. He is a major face of the sort of views > about software that led to the FSF’s work and to the > GPL (ie, “free software). His face is not important.
What I mean is Stallman is one of the people whom is seen as the leaders of open source and what he says has an impact on the open source movement. His lack of acceptance of choice of licensing, for example, is a very common theme in the open source community (though some are not as restrictive as he is in that area).
> Many people respect a lot of his writings and many > core parts of his views in many areas related to user > control and software freedom. Many people respect > those views or their gist despite not agreeing on > everything with Stallman and recognizing he doesn’t > present the most marketable face (figurative and > literal) for “open source” and maybe not even for > “free software”.. at least if we are to judge by > volume of consumer reactions.
He is a repulsive man whose reputation is tied to the view many have of open source. His disgraceful actions harm the open source community.
> From what I remember, I agree somewhat with what you > said about Jobs and DRM, but it’s not clear to me > that DRM would have been successful for Jobs when it > hasn’t been for many others.
He was very clear with why he used DRM, what he did to help make it work (and why) and how it still was pretty much destined to fail:
http://www.apple.com/es/hotnews/thoughtsonmusic
> Apple probably is a lot better about standards than > is Microsoft; however, I wouldn’t put them at the top > of any list in terms of those working towards open > standards and/or open source.
Nor I. Heck, I wish Apple would have used an open standard for its iWork suite. They did not.
> I agree this website is confrontational. I share with > Roy a lot of “key” views wrt freedom from powerful > vendors and abuse of IP laws and some other things, > but I do think his approach isn’t always pretty or > desirable .. but, like you said, we can’t all agree > on everything.
And I absolutely agree that the IP protection system in use today is harmful and often absurd... though I also admit I do not have a full answer for a solution.
I think Roy and I agree that open source software has made a massive impact on the world and that it is a great thing. He and I agree that open source solutions are often the best for many things - and that when all else is equal, or even nearly so, using their is benefit to using the open source solution (are at least a no-cost solution).
Roy and I are both big supporters of open source - and we both agree that MS (and Apple and others) have done wrong.
So I think Roy and I actually could come to some pretty significant areas of respect and agreement - if he was not fearful of discussing his mistakes and errors. For example, his lies about me in terms of KDE usage I think were - initially - an error on his part. I publicly granted him that and defended him when others said he was just lying. I tracked down quotes of mine which, when taken out of context, could have lead him to come to his faulty conclusion. I gave him every benefit of the doubt.
And then he spat on my face (figuratively) and openly lied about me. Just bizarre. I merely noted he made an *error* and made no accusations - and that was too much for him to handle. It is this attitude of his which leads to my disagreements with him... his inability to admit when he is wrong - and that, I think, is what has lead to him being borderline paranoid.
> I do appreciate he covers a lot of these topics in a > lot more detail than you might find in other places.
But, sadly, with such a strong bias as to make his information very unreliable.
> I see it as a “blog” to allow himself to vent and get > ideas down for the public. I don’t think he is as > careful as he could be, but I also find sloppiness > with comments attacking him or the articles. In > general, there is too much attacking of people for my > tastes. Although, many find this feature useful.
Agreed. And to be fair to Roy, he could easily kill this account in *his* system and stop me from posting here. I have been very clear that I would not work to get around any such block.
Then again, he did block me from his IRC channel and when I later found the block to be gone he repeatedly lied and claimed I worked to get around the block. My "work" consisted of going to his site and using his online tool and entering my standard online name (Snit) - the very one that had been blocked. Roy repeatedly makes such false accusations and outright lies against me. And I find such behavior on his part quite despicable.
> I would probably agree with you on a fair amount, > but, when I drop by, your comments do oftentimes > defend a little too much some things I don’t like. > The combative environment here is part of that > reason, I can believe.
I can agree to that... and even admit I have responded to Roy's attacks by being more aggressive that I should have been. I think that is a fair criticism of some of my comments.
Jose_X
2011-10-11 22:32:44
>> He is a repulsive man
I googled and got a terse comment about voluntary pedophilia. With respect to that one comment, I will say that many people in many societies and many libertarians in the US (I suspect) would find (let's say) "voluntary" marriage of men (including older teenagers) with young teenage girls to be acceptable. Certainly at least with older teenage girls. I know a relative of mine (very loving and inspirational and respectful of truth and knowledge, who lived to a very old age) that says she really loved her much older husband, having been married under just these conditions, iirc. I don't think such a marriage is a good idea if it can be avoided (women traditionally have faced few rights and certain expectations in many cultures, so this context must be taken into account in terms of deciding the best decisions at some point in time). I have heard of American girls running away from home in order to marry much older men (likely there was a failure there elsewhere, but children all over the world grow up in less than ideal conditions).
Many people, especially among the many libertarians in the US, have many views that are not orthodox. The issue here was not one about obeying laws or not but expressing doubt about what may hurt or may not hurt others under non-violent voluntary conditions. Given the range of experiences some people have in life, I think it should not be surprising to be uncertain about the answer to such a question.
So while I understand and respect your opinion -- and likely agree further with your views on pedophilia -- this appears to be a private query to the self (it was a question wondering about hurt vs not hurt) made in a diary one time long ago and is no reason generally and by itself to tag someone as repulsive in many people's eyes. Even in this example, the idea of non-violence and respecting others' wishes (including those of children) is what is maximally supported.
Like I said, there are many people who have loved each other and violated or would have violated US sex/marriage laws if their nation had been this one. I don't think expressing doubt over a law that criminalizes those people makes a person repulsive.
[I do hope kids can find as much support as they need to hopefully avoid such situations to feel in love with someone potentially much much older and want to be "rescued".]
Dr. Roy Schestowitz
2011-10-11 22:41:46
Something about Jobs in my newspaper. http://imgur.com/hIcgm
By the way, Jose_X, mental case Michael is a parasite here. He runs a site dedicated to attacking Techrights (he tries to exploit it to get traffic off us) and is trolling members of this site. Don't spend too much time on him, that's just what he aims for.
Michael
2011-10-11 22:58:14
Stallman says nothing of teens.
> Certainly at least with older teenage girls. I know a > relative of mine (very loving and inspirational and > respectful of truth and knowledge, who lived to a > very old age) that says she really loved her much > older husband, having been married under just these > conditions, iirc. I don’t think such a marriage is a > good idea if it can be avoided (women traditionally > have faced few rights and certain expectations in > many cultures, so this context must be taken into > account in terms of deciding the best decisions at > some point in time). I have heard of American girls > running away from home in order to marry much older > men (likely there was a failure there elsewhere, but > children all over the world grow up in less than > ideal conditions).
Do not get me wrong - there are gray areas where one can make reasoned arguments. The idea Stallman is doing so, however, is not supported by his own comments.
My main problem with his comments is his saying that public schools should allow uncensored access to any porn and that such material should be deemed "educational material" that is good for the students. Combined with his idea that even repulsive porn such as child porn should be legal to download (though not make unless the child is willing!) this just becomes more and more grotesque.
Read what Stallman says: do you think he would be for or against letting students download videos of patents raping their kids? Do you think he would call this "educational material" If you can find any place where he allows this "exception" to his "rules" please let me know - and what other things he would see as exceptions.
...
Also, note where I have been very specific with my concerns about Roy's comments. I have provided quotes of his comments, links to his own show, video and images to support my views... and all he can respond with is name calling and silly insults / accusations. His behavior backs my claims *perfectly*. He is being his own worst enemy.
Jose_X
2011-10-11 23:17:43
http://www.arnnet.com.au/article/361173/online_only_richard_stallman_-_no_censorship_good_censorship/ That link is an interview, and I'll quote the relevant part instead of putting words in his mouth. This quote is about censorship, even if the material created was of illegal actions.
Do you have any actual quote? Maybe you have misunderstood his views. He wasn't advocating for pedophilia in what I read earlier, nor is he advocating for it below.
*****
DR: So is child pornography not a good enough reason to censor the Internet?
RS: Certainly not, certainly not a good enough reason. There are videos I’ve seen that shocked and disgusted me, but I don’t want to censor them. I do not advocate censorship just because I or you find them disgusting.
Some people say they want censorship of child pornography because making those movies was a crime. Well that may be so, but not always because sometimes when they say “child” they’re talking about people aged 16 and 17, who in parts of the US can legally get married.
But forget that lie for a moment. Consider for instance the collateral murder video that also depicts a crime and it was made by the vehicle in association with the people who were carrying out. Should that be censored around the world? I think that when businesses make child pornography and when it involves real sexual abuse of real children, then they’re carrying out a crime and anyone participating in the business of distributing that film is involved in it. So there’s a reason other than censorship to prosecute any of them.
But those who simply redistribute [child pornography] are in the same position of people who redistribute the collateral murder video. They’re not participating in the crime and there are a lot of films that depict murders except nobody really got killed. And there are a lot of films that depict the harm of animals except none really got harmed so if somebody was really torturing an animal, we would stop it. But depicting that without actually doing it we consider okay…but there’s no need to censor depictions of that.
Michael
2011-10-11 23:29:29
I base my views on his words and link back to his own site so there is no chance of taking anything out of context.
> http://www.arnnet.com.au/article/361173/ > online_only_richard_stallman_- > _no_censorship_good_censorship/ That link is an > interview, and I’ll quote the relevant part instead > of putting words in his mouth. This quote is about > censorship, even if the material created was of > illegal actions. > > Do you have any actual quote?
Many. See here for links and the like:
http://trw.gallopinginsanity.com/2011/09/01/sex-scandals
> Maybe you have misunderstood his views. He wasn’t > advocating for pedophilia in what I read earlier, nor > is he advocating for it below.
He is advocating for the legalization of it... not the act itself.
> ***** > > DR: So is child pornography not a good enough reason > to censor the Internet? > > RS: Certainly not, certainly not a good enough > reason. There are videos I’ve seen that shocked and > disgusted me, but I don’t want to censor them. I do > not advocate censorship just because I or you find > them disgusting.
Notice how he posts the straw man of them merely being "disgusting" and not harmful. And keep in mind he includes public schools as an area where they should not be censored:
http://stallman.org/archives/2010-jan-apr.html#29%20March%202010%20(Bikini%20Atoll%20off%20limits)
: Internet filtering in schools blocks access to educational : materials. While that article focuses on blockage of the : educational materials that prudes would admit, porn is also very : important for education. Blocking adolescents’ access to porn, or : keeping them ignorant of sex in any way, is likely to stunt their : emotional growth and make them vulnerable to mistakes that can : hurt them badly.
> Some people say they want censorship of child > pornography because making those movies was a crime. > Well that may be so, but not always because sometimes > when they say “child” they’re talking about people > aged 16 and 17, who in parts of the US can legally > get married.
"Not always". Great. But sometimes yes. He groups the overall problem with the fringe cases... and does this without noting that the fringe cases should be treated differnetly.
In other words, he looks for gray areas where there may be some *reasonable* question and tries to use that as an excuse to allow even the stuff that is clearly not in the gray area.
> But forget that lie for a moment. Consider for > instance the collateral murder video that also > depicts a crime and it was made by the vehicle in > association with the people who were carrying out. > Should that be censored around the world? I think > that when businesses make child pornography and when > it involves real sexual abuse of real children, then > they’re carrying out a crime and anyone participating > in the business of distributing that film is involved > in it. So there’s a reason other than censorship to > prosecute any of them.
Wait: stopping someone from distributing the film *is* censorship. So at least he does accept this level of censorship.
> But those who simply redistribute [child pornography] > are in the same position of people who redistribute > the collateral murder video. They’re not > participating in the crime and there are a lot of > films that depict murders except nobody really got > killed. And there are a lot of films that depict the > harm of animals except none really got harmed so if > somebody was really torturing an animal, we would > stop it. But depicting that without actually doing it > we consider okay…but there’s no need to censor > depictions of that.
No need to censor... even in schools. And then he wants to call it "educational material". What a repulsive man.
Here was my question from before... it is not rhetorical - I would love an answer:
Read what Stallman says: do you think he would be for or against letting students download videos of patents raping their kids? Do you think he would call this “educational material” If you can find any place where he allows this “exception” to his “rules” please let me know – and what other things he would see as exceptions
Jose_X
2011-10-12 22:02:24
I don't want to get into the question of what is ideal state policy now on this topic because I think you point was that Roy should attack RMS if he attacks Microsoft employees. Can you elaborate on that (ie, link to the Microsoft example)?
Also, I think you misunderstood the part where you said he supports censorship. He said that it makes no sense to use the excuse of censorship to get at the criminal behavior because the criminal behavior is already criminal. It appears he would agree that other parties should be able to distribute the films which show criminal behavior.
These topics are very touchy for many reasons. Our current laws have problems and inconsistencies. Parents (and each kid.. including any number that are molested) have all sorts of opinions. Our laws don't give people under the age X the same rights and freedoms as given to those of age X and above. Sex has characteristics that make it different from other forms of speech, but that's not to say there aren't many other types of controversial speech (hate speech, etc) dealt with in diverse ways. Less controversial but still controversial is violence in general (in movies, video games, etc). There is the issue of young people having sex with young people (something that I think happens between very young teens in many schools in the US) vs ids with adults. There is the question of speech and learning: learning about sex can have an important effect to reducing the amount of sex kids have (and especially unsafe sex or being manipulated into it). This is true about learning about almost anything, where you feel less of a human curiosity to experiment to see "the" result. There are many more variables [religion, diseases, customs and social norms stigmas and consequences, distraction, addiction, underage rights, parents/individuals vs state, (violence is not in debate here), ......]. Anyway, I don't want to get into this topic very much.
So the important point was the RMS and Microsoft connection. Is there a link?
Jose_X
2011-10-12 22:25:13
Michael
2011-10-13 00:19:56
But if Roy wants to say he was not talking about the system, then fine. But he will not even say that - he just dodges the whole issue. If you get a chance, though, listen to the show - or at least the segments I point to with the time codes. It is really quite clear I am asking him about systems and not just KDE.
Michael
2011-10-13 00:23:48
I do have a problem with allowing students to have uncensored access to *anything* they can find - even, for example, overweight hermaphrodites in rodeo outfits having sex with Crisco covered pigs. And, please, if such exists, do not provide me with a link. Thanks!
Michael
2011-10-13 00:33:32
I do not think anyone has said 18 is a magic number. Stallman's position is interesting, I suppose, in the same way a car wreck is.
> I don’t want to get into the question of what is > ideal state policy now on this topic because I think > you point was that Roy should attack RMS if he > attacks Microsoft employees. Can you elaborate on > that (ie, link to the Microsoft example)?
My position is that Roy should not nit pick MS employes and attack them for unsupported accusations as he ignores the clearly far more repulsive and easily proved comments by Stallman. I am against such hypocrisy because it harms the goals of honest open source supporters, such as myself, Linus Torvalds, Mark Shuttleworth, etc. (no, I am not saying I am in the same level of influence as those two - just saying we are on one "side" of the open source world while Stallman and Roy are on the other).
> Also, I think you misunderstood the part where you > said he supports censorship. He said that it makes no > sense to use the excuse of censorship to get at the > criminal behavior because the criminal behavior is > already criminal. It appears he would agree that > other parties should be able to distribute the films > which show criminal behavior.
Stallman agrees not only that the act itself is illegal (good!) but that *some* others should not be able to share videos of the acts. He limits this to just those in the "distribution business" who are in a "business relationship" with the criminal - only those people should be censored. Nobody else. Not even kids in public schools.
That is just insane.
> These topics are very touchy for many reasons. Our > current laws have problems and inconsistencies.
Absolutely. But that is not really relevant here.
... > So the important point was the RMS and Microsoft > connection. Is there a link?
Commented on above - Roy is being grossly hypocritical. His bias is frightfully irrational.
Jose_X
2011-10-13 02:58:48
I reread the distribution/crime/censorship part and I think it's a bit ambiguous, so I think I understand why you state your view and I mine.
I read it as the original distributors being a part of the crime via crime laws.. perhaps like the person who releases to Wikileaks (putting aside the issue of whistle-blower status). And then he says that once it is "leaked" that it should not be censored. Ie, contributing to the creation of the material would be different than the speech issue of those distributing afterward.
Michael
2011-10-13 03:16:35
Ah, I discuss that here:
http://trw.gallopinginsanity dot com/2011/09/01/sex-scandals
[link broke because Roy has accused me of wanting to use his site to create links to mine or some such nonsense... but I am sure you can fix it]
> I reread the distribution/crime/censorship part and I > think it’s a bit ambiguous, so I think I understand > why you state your view and I mine. > > I read it as the original distributors being a part > of the crime via crime laws.. perhaps like the person > who releases to Wikileaks (putting aside the issue of > whistle-blower status). And then he says that once it > is “leaked” that it should not be censored. Ie, > contributing to the creation of the material would be > different than the speech issue of those distributing > afterward.
There are three groups being discussed:
1) The people who create the material 2) Someone in a business relationship with 1 3) Others who are not in a business relationship with 1
Stallman allows a lot of activities to be "OK" in 1, including "prostitution, adultery, necrophilia, bestiality, possession of child pornography, and even incest and pedophilia". Those are his exact words. Of those activities, he says they are "illegal only because of prejudice and narrowmindedness."
Notice he leave out the idea that they some of those are illegal because they are harmful to people. He shows no understanding of that. And for this group of "1"s, everything goes.
But he does, thankfully, draw the line at some things: non-consentual incest, for example. He agrees this should be illegal (yes, he has to go out of his way to note that patents raping their own kids is something he is actually against... his general comments on the topic did not make that clear!)
For these people he thinks their activities should be illegal. Good. But he thinks that for people in group 3 there should be *no* censorship. Even in, as I keep noting, public schools. And this is just insane of him.
But he does agree that people in group 2 should be censored in these cases. They are not the ones committing the crime, but their "right" to buy and sell and, presumably, even view this material should be censored. Well, of course it should - but it should also be censored in schools (at the very least... for crying out loud - do we really need to make a case why incestual rape videos should not be shown on YouTube?)!
So not only is Stallman obscenely grotesque he is also inconsistent. Why accept censorship for group 2 when he states that "No matter how disgusting published works might be, censorship is more disgusting." For people with a business relationship with incestual rapists this, apparently does not apply (which is good... just not consistent).
Jose_X
2011-10-13 11:31:49
Assuming you are precise over what RMS thinks:
1 -- There are a number of people that would participate in many of those things if even applicable (eg, adultery may not apply (unwed) or boils down to a matter of definitions or the couple doesn't care, some nations have legalized prostitution, etc). The issue that I think concerns him is over government restrictions on consenting individuals, not over whether anyone in particular should like any one of those things. We can go into why someone might want some of these things, but I don't want to get far into this. Many libertarians, for example, think it's a person's own choice what they do in their privacy, for example. I'm not saying you should agree (I don't take that position either), but I don't think "obscenely grotesque" is the proper adjective for someone with those strong individual rights views (and, again, I agree the child's rights require particular care in order to really respect them).
2 -- What about Linus or Mark? You can expect RMS generally to more strongly represent individual rights than we might expect of either Torvald or Shuttleworth. Torvald's primary support is for developers not consumers. Shuttleworth does want to provide a product you will want to buy but also looks out for his potential to make money from you and not necessarily based on what is in your best interest at all times (I do give him credit but surely believe profit motive affects his judgement more than just an ounce). This is why it was RMS and not either of the other two that came up with the GPL and takes such a strong position against groups that abridge rights. So while you may trust your kids with RMS but not want them to get too close to RMS in terms of sharing philosophy, you may very well trust RMS more than the other two when it comes to opinion on a consumer beneficial law.
I'm not saying you have to like RMS, but I want to convey why I think a lot of people respect and trust him when it comes to certain issues. He has the track record the others don't in certain pro-individual scenarios.
Jose_X
2011-10-13 12:02:26
As concerns your page at "...sex-scandals", I would appreciate if you would add on my behalf a link to my last comment above ( http://techrights.org/2011/10/07/steve-jobs/comment-page-3/#comment-130991 ) and also specifically quote it (starting from "Michael, my reading was that RMS argues ..." and ending at "...He has the track record the others don’t in certain pro-individual scenarios."). The comment does not exactly fit the context of your page, but it comes close I think. With the link, people can come back here.
I did not see a way to leave a comment myself or I would have.
I would appreciate it.
Michael
2011-10-13 16:11:55
I do not see how any of this is relevant to his desire to see porn of all sorts - legally or illegally created - relabeled as "educational material" and set to be discoverable and viewable in schools, completely uncensored.
> 2 — What about Linus or Mark? You can expect RMS > generally to more strongly represent individual > rights than we might expect of either Torvald or > Shuttleworth. Torvald’s primary support is for > developers not consumers. Shuttleworth does want to > provide a product you will want to buy but also looks > out for his potential to make money from you and not > necessarily based on what is in your best interest at > all times (I do give him credit but surely believe > profit motive affects his judgement more than just an > ounce). This is why it was RMS and not either of the > other two that came up with the GPL and takes such a > strong position against groups that abridge rights. > So while you may trust your kids with RMS but not > want them to get too close to RMS in terms of sharing > philosophy, you may very well trust RMS more than the > other two when it comes to opinion on a consumer > beneficial law.
I would not trust Stallman to collect my garbage (on a side note, I have a *wonderful* garbage man who I have tremendous respect for - in no way am I belitting his job or those who hold it!)
> I’m not saying you have to like RMS, but I want to > convey why I think a lot of people respect and trust > him when it comes to certain issues. He has the track > record the others don’t in certain pro-individual > scenarios.
Even repulsive individuals such as Stallman can still do good work... I am not putting down the GPL nor denying his involvement with it.
> ---------- > > As concerns your page at “…sex-scandals”, ... > I did not see a way to leave a comment myself or I > would have. > > I would appreciate it.
Complete error on my part - comments are now re-opened. They were set to automatically be closed after X days... that is no longer the case for the site.
Jose_X
2011-10-11 23:04:35
Michael
2011-10-11 23:18:53
First there is the link to the show. Then my noting I should thank Roy. And it was sincere. Then 4 points to cover - then I have each of the points.
The time stamps (Snit: 8:47) are the approximate time the comment was made on the MP3. That is what I am quoting from. Stuff without time stamps are my thoughts... comments I wanted to make to Roy.
I also have some additional info, such as under section 2 where I compare the consistency of PCLOS and OS X.
Happy to explain more if you want.
And note Roy's response in this thread - he has none. I support my points with quotes, links to his own show, videos and screenshots I provide, other research of mine, etc.
Roy's only response is to call me names and make insults / accusations. He has no answer to why he was so wrong about KDE/PCLOS both past and present. He has no answer for why he would accuse me of basing my view of KDE on screenshots and videos and not actual use. He just makes things up and runs when faced with it.
Jose_X
2011-10-12 00:00:38
For point 2, I noticed that you mentioned 3 apps having different button placement for closing unsaved file. For the record, I think Roy was talking about KDE, and I think at most 2 of the 3 are KDE apps.
This is what you quoted Roy saying: >> a file dialog you might say that will be inconsistent but that is just not true ... the way it works in KDE I would be quite surprised if it is very inconsistent
I'm not sure what this quoted statement by Roy means, but it seems he is recognizing that there might be some inconsistencies. He even added:
>> I would be very happy if you found some cases where it's not consistent - maybe even help developers.
So I don't see how finding one possible inconsistency proves he lied about anything. He even appears to be happy you would find something (assuming you point it out to developers).
And also note that in the examples you gave of the 2 KDE apps' save dialog, each had the same button order and effect (yea, nay, cancel). The wording was very similar, so in this slightly different wording would likely be the only partial and small inconsistency.
On point 3, I looked at the PDF and didn't notice a difference between the 2 KDE apps for saving/closing. I could certainly have missed something, but I get the feeling you were comparing different toolkit apps on PCLOS with each other while Roy may have been thinking of KDE apps (at least this is the best I can tell from what is quoted).
Also on point 3, Roy said: "I've used it before and I don't think it's true what you are saying now."
Even if you were correct entirely on there being inconsistency based on the question posed (though not quoted by you in that transcript), I don't see how expressing an opinion based on what he remembers can be called a lie. How can you know what he remembers?
For point 4, it's not clear Roy is referring to "Ribbon" in every detail as opposed to the general flavor or feature or what might go into a patent. Note that the context appears to be patents.
Then you stated you didn't find a patent. That doesn't prove anything since I believe expert lawyers with experience and with a lot of money on the line (and doing their jobs) frequently don't find patents when they look for them. [If you want a quote from a lawyer to this effect, I'll google for it.]
Anyway, I haven't noticed a lie in points 2, 3, or 4. I do note potential miscommunication. I can't say much about point 1.
Michael
2011-10-12 00:34:41
Roy made the comment about my knowledge of KDE in Usenet. He claimed it was based on the show - so I have quoted all of my comments about KDE. Roy did say at one point that his claim was tied to those comments of mine - though he cannot say how (he quoted parts of my last statement).
The bottom line is I made videos and screenhots of KDE based on my own usage. Roy then accused me of lying about my use of KDE, saying I judged it only on those screenshots and videos. I assumed he merely made an error, at first, but he has since made it very clear he is just going to lie about it.
Roy was shown that his views about PCLOS were not accurate, so instead of talking about his views he decided to attack me and lie about me.
He cannot face the message, so he attacks the messenger.
> For point 2, I noticed that you mentioned 3 apps > having different button placement for closing unsaved > file. For the record, I think Roy was talking about > KDE, and I think at most 2 of the 3 are KDE apps.
We were talking about PCLOS, not KDE.
> This is what you quoted Roy saying: >>> a file dialog you might say that will be >>> inconsistent but that is just not true … the way it >>> works in KDE I would be quite surprised if it is >>> very inconsistent > > I’m not sure what this quoted statement by Roy means, > but it seems he is recognizing that there might be > some inconsistencies. He even added: > >>> I would be very happy if you found some cases where >>> it’s not consistent – maybe even help developers. > > So I don’t see how finding one possible inconsistency > proves he lied about anything. He even appears to be > happy you would find something (assuming you point it > out to developers).
The topic was PCLOS (listen to the show to see that) and I did more than find "one possible inconsistency".
http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/PCLOS-OSX-comparison.pdf
Those are the specific apps Roy spoke about. But, yes, I am happy to say I was wrong about how bad it would be - it has improved a lot since I had looked at it before.
> And also note that in the examples you gave of the 2 > KDE apps’ save dialog, each had the same button order > and effect (yea, nay, cancel). The wording was very > similar, so in this slightly different wording would > likely be the only partial and small inconsistency.
What do you mean it would likely be the only inconsistency?
> On point 3, I looked at the PDF and didn’t notice a > difference between the 2 KDE apps for saving/closing. > I could certainly have missed something, but I get > the feeling you were comparing different toolkit apps > on PCLOS with each other while Roy may have been > thinking of KDE apps (at least this is the best I can > tell from what is quoted).
Again: the focus is the system. I used the standard apps.
> Also on point 3, Roy said: “I’ve used it before and I > don’t think it’s true what you are saying now.” > > Even if you were correct entirely on there being > inconsistency based on the question posed (though not > quoted by you in that transcript), I don’t see how > expressing an opinion based on what he remembers can > be called a lie. How can you know what he remembers?
I did not say he lied about that. I noted he was incorrect and how he has, since, run from any discussion of it and instead just calls me names.
> For point 4, it’s not clear Roy is referring to > “Ribbon” in every detail as opposed to the general > flavor or feature or what might go into a patent. > Note that the context appears to be patents.
He and I were talking about the ribbon.
> Then you stated you didn’t find a patent. That > doesn’t prove anything since I believe expert lawyers > with experience and with a lot of money on the line > (and doing their jobs) frequently don’t find patents > when they look for them. [If you want a quote from a > lawyer to this effect, I'll google for it.]
No need. What I would like is for Roy to back his claim that there is one. Hence, from my notes:
----- I looked up info on patents on the Ribbon and found none. Wikipedia specifically denies they do. Do you have any info on that? -----
Notice I do not even say Wikipedia is right - just ask him to back his claims.
> Anyway, I haven’t noticed a lie in points 2, 3, or 4.
Right: he was simply in error. He did not lie. And he also will not discuss those things - he is simply going to run from any such discussion... and wheneve his errors are brought up he will just call me names and make silly accusations.
Here, Roy, obviously you read this so prove me wrong: explain why your views. Please. I would much prefer a reasoned discussion than your empty name calling and silly insults and accusations.
> I do note potential miscommunication.
I am open to listening to what Roy has to say. The bottom line is KDE/PCLOS is still quite inconsistent, though it is far, far better than it was with the older version. Also, like it or not, OS X even with third party programs such as the ones Roy mentioned, are far more consistent than those on PCLOS.
> I can’t say much about point 1.
I can. Roy was wrong about me and called me a liar over it. I did not sink to his level and assumed he was merely mistaken. He then freaked out and started calling me named over my noting his error... and made it clear he would just repeat false information (lie).
Jose_X
2011-10-12 00:48:25
Michael, you can't flip from KDE to PCLOS or treat them as one. From the evidence you provided, I did not notice any clear errors when it comes to KDE. The quoting was only over KDE (you might be right about PCLOS, but I haven't heard the mp3). Roy specifically qualified his response in point 2 by stating KDE. And, again, as that goes, you found at most 1 inconsistency, but it would not be an inconsistency of action/effect as I think some of the concern was over. [And the wording differences were slight.]
Anyway, I hope you two patch things up. I think you comment here in rebuttal fairly frequently, and him calling you a "mental" case, regardless of any "proof" or not (and we are all mental in some ways), is I'd guess one way for him to briskly deal with the frustration. I am sure you are frustrated as well.
Michael
2011-10-12 00:57:48
Yeah, I am grading in the middle of going back and forth on this and need to get done.
> Michael, you can’t flip from KDE to PCLOS or treat > them as one.
Absolutely agree - which is why I think when we are comparing systems it is silly to talk about KDE and not PCLOS. Roy and I were talking about systems. Still, a common cop-out of the COLA "advocates" is that they jump from one to the other.
> From the evidence you provided, I did not notice any > clear errors when it comes to KDE.
Frankly I did not pay any attention to that - the focus was on systems, so PCLOS.
> The quoting was only over KDE (you might be right > about PCLOS, but I haven’t heard the mp3). Roy > specifically qualified his response in point 2 by > stating KDE.
Yes: he repeatedly did as you noted was *not* the right thing to do, flipping from PCLOS to KDE. You are right that not all of the context is in my quotes - listen to the MP3, or at least the relevant sections, to get more context. I think it is very clear I am asking him about things at a system level (PCLOS) and not just KDE.
> And, again, as that goes, you found at most 1 > inconsistency, but it would not be an inconsistency > of action/effect as I think some of the concern was > over. [And the wording differences were slight.]
That is just in the text. Did you look at the PDF? I show more there.
> Anyway, I hope you two patch things up.
Ditto here. Very much so. I would welcome a chance to speak to him and assure you and him I would be quite civil (I generally am).
> I think you comment here in rebuttal fairly > frequently, and him calling you a “mental” case, > regardless of any “proof” or not (and we are all > mental in some ways), is I’d guess one way for him to > briskly deal with the frustration.
He is clearly frustrated, but - again and to his credit - my account here has not been killed. While I note his weaknesses, I will note this speaks highly of him. I respect how he allows such negative views of him and his site on his own site. That takes some level of character.
> I am sure you are frustrated as well.
Generally not - sure, I would like to talk to him and work things out, but I mostly find such debates fun. I do wish Roy was confident enough in his views to actually try to defend them... but I think it is quite clear he is not. Not even Roy beleives what Roy claims.
Jose_X
2011-10-12 22:14:20
I may hear the mp3 later, but it seems the problem here was mostly over miscommunication. Each side hedged with where they were more comfortable.
Dr. Roy Schestowitz
2011-10-12 00:02:56
http://www.muktware.com/blogs/2625
Jose_X
2011-10-12 00:38:27
In Jobs' defense, he did take the time (or someone did on his behalf) to address the letter somewhat directly. People probably like that attention. I don't think most people expect to write a letter to a popular CEO of a huge company and get a reply.. several times. [Keep in mind the earlier point about the rude factor possibly being more acceptable to customers coming from him and it helping to create that aura and image of Apple/Jobs, the brand.]
Anyway, I doubt that was Jobs himself (I don't know, of course), and that reply may have been easier for Apple to make than to answer whatever she was asking for originally.
It wouldn't endear me (personally) to the firm or brand, but then I've never shopped Apple.
Dr. Roy Schestowitz
2011-10-13 10:48:28