Microsoft Calls AdTI "Study" an "Unhelpful Distraction" (Microsoft FUD Goes Thud)

www.groklaw.com ^ | Monday, June 14 2004 @ 11:49 PM EDT | Pamela Jones

[Golden Eagle]

Here's the last time you and I had this discussion, you and Shadowace (not to be confused with Shadowman) and your buddies from the junk yard:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1139164/posts?q=1&&page=251

I see you've got no better points than before, should be spewing names again any second. Don't waste your time, I won't be around to see it. O U T.

[Paladin2]

So you agree that you are a fellow traveler with BC?

[Paladin2]

The current discussion is that you seem to have no "off-topic posts", consistent with not being upset with FR being hosted by the "commie, hippie, un-American Gnu/Linux", leads one to believe that you are a shill, paid or not. Making technology available to America's enemies for profit or not is essentially the same position.

The only solution I see is to develop a secure O/S for America alone.

You seem to be able to do this, but choose not to. All we hear is complaints that GNU/Linux is doing for less $$$ what M$ wants to do. America needs better a technology strategy. You seem uninterested in contributing same, but find plenty of time to complain.

I'd say you should put up.

[shadowman99]

"Odd that you must have manually typed in the article rather than just copying it; you missed whole sections of paragraphs. Was this the annotated version?"

Opps. That's what happens when I cut and paste from the html code and miss some of the content. I was attempting to re-print the story and copyright notice without reprinting the user comments. Sorry.

[Cultural Jihad]

OIC. A clever attempt all the same! Do you use IE as your browser? If so, there's the "View Partial Source" add-on ("Microsoft Web Developer Accessories") available from Microsoft at the bottom of this page:

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/ie/previous/webaccess/default.mspx

"And for those who are tired of scrolling through hundreds of lines of HTML to find that one section of code that does what you want, you can now simply highlight the area of Web page for which you want to view the source, right-click on it, and then select View Partial Source."

[Nick Danger]

Sounds exactly right, to me.

That's because you didn't read it very carefully. Instead you were composing another note about somebody else's reading comprehension, when you should have been paying more attention to your own.

[Nick Danger]

those proven purveyors of FUD, AdTI

I get the sense from Microsoft's "unhelpful distraction" comment that ADTI has one less client as of today.

[TechJunkYard]

So Microsoft now makes it easier to rip off someone else's HTML source? Neat-o!

[antiRepublicrat]

So now paid research is done by third-party hearsay?

No, it's also done by interviewing the appropriate parties involved and then ignoring them when they shoot down your thesis.

[antiRepublicrat]

You don't go far enough. Does she grow her own wheat using previously unused farming techniques and a wild form of wheat that has not been purposely crossbred to its current form? Does she have an original technique for milling it? I hope she doesn't burn the cane before extracting the sugar, because that's not an original idea. ...

[antiRepublicrat]

I'd suggest going with the existing movement to call it "GNU/Linux".

Not good except to inflate Stallman's ego. GNU software makes up a small part of the average Linux distribution (which includes the kernel and massive amounts of other non-GNU free software). It'd be like saying a Volkswagen should be a "Bosch/Volkswagen" because some of the parts are made by Bosch. Using your logic, we should call it Apache/BIND/Nmap/sendmail/.../Linux. My Photoshop disk came with some nifty third-party filters and utilities, so should I prepend those to the Photoshop name?

One main question to ask is: Can Linux run without the GNU tools? The answer is Yes.

[antiRepublicrat]

And Golden Eagle has since admitted that, despite claims to the contrary, has never climbed Mt. Everest, and has recently freely admitted that fact to be true.

Please tell me you're being facetious. That was only an example of how Brown created a controversy where none existed, and then gloated when Linus said he was right (not "inventing" Linux).

I also created a controversy where there was none (GE climbing Mount Everest), and GE admitted I was right! I won the argument because GE admitted I was right!. Doesn't matter that there was no argument to begin with. I still get to claim I won.

[antiRepublicrat]

Mainly because that stuff is pirateware, isn't it?

If I buy a DVD I have the right to view it on my home computer. I do not have the right to publicly broadcast, copy for resale, etc. I do have the right to make personal copies for backup. I do have the right to take excerpts for a review.

This "pirateware" allows me to do all that. Yes, I know it can be used for illegal copying, but then a gun can be used for illegal killing too. Should we ban guns?

[Golden Eagle]

This "pirateware" allows me to do all that.

I'm sure it does. Sorry you don't see the point.

[N3WBI3]

Can you not accept the fact that is someone say RedHat they are referring to RedHat's Distro and if someone say Linux they mean the Kernel?

[N3WBI3]

What about planned parenthood?

[N3WBI3]

So now were not just godless communist we are animal worshippers... DO the lifeguards know youve gone off the deepend?

[Knitebane]

Please tell me you're being facetious.

No, I was being absurd.

I figure that if GE can spout his non-sensical absurities, it's only fair that I get to respond in-kind.

That was only an example of how Brown created a controversy where none existed, and then gloated when Linus said he was right (not "inventing" Linux).

I took a quote out of context, and in doing so tried to make a point that doesn't really exist.

This is precisely the tactic that GE has been using. The quote by Linus saying that he didn't write Linux is only relevant when taken in context.

Linus states the obvious. In an open source product with a team of developers, saying that you alone wrote the final product would be dishonest.

But the original Linux code, posted to a news group in 1991, was written by Linus and Linus alone.

There is a considerable difference between the currently available Linux kernel, which has had numerous developers working on it, and the original Linux kernel, which was developed by Linus alone.

GE is taking a statement by Linus out of context and attempting to make the two equal.

And that is no less absurd than my previous Mt. Everest statement.