Oliver Wong wrote:
> "Tim Smith" <reply_in_group@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:reply_in_group-9FD920.19234819092006@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > In article <hYTPg.19330$KA6.1783@clgrps12>,
> > "Oliver Wong" <owong@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> On the other hand, there are several differences between "Linux is
> >> good
> >> because [some factually true statement]" and "Microsoft sucks because
> >> [some
> >> factually false statement]". For one, one of them is Linux advocacy, and
> >> the
> >> other is not.
> >
> > And then there are the "Microsoft sucks because [some factually true
> > statement that is ALSO true for Linux]". Are those advocacy?
>
> If it is, it's not *Linux* advocacy. Merriam-Webster defines "advocacy"
> as "the act or process of advocating or supporting a cause or proposal" and
> defines "advocating" as "to plead in favor of".
>
> Any post which solely bashes Microsoft without even mentioning Linux is
> not Linux advocacy. At best, it's "give-up-Microsoft" advocacy, which is
> offtopic in this newsgroup. To state it explicitly, giving up Microsoft does
> not nescessarily entail taking up Linux (they could switch to OSX instead,
> or give up computers altogether). Furthermore, taking up Linux does not
> entail giving up Microsoft (they could have several machines, some of them
> running Linux, some of them running Microsoft, or dual boot). Basically,
> Microsoft-bashing has nothing to do with Linux advocacy other than the fact
> that a lot of misdirected inviduals are bashing Microsoft in an attempt to
> advocate Linux. This is, of course, completely ineffective, and primarily
> just drives the potential converts away from Linux.
>
> Furthermore, when advocates are caught lying, it reflects very poorly on
> them. I remember the first time I saw Roy refer to Vista as "XP SP3", and I
> figured he was joking, but felt this was going dangerously close to the
> "lying" territory. So I warned him about it. Then, I realized he was
> serious. He really seems to believe there is nothing in Vista other than a
> new skin or icon set or cosmetic changes. Even when presented with a 32 page
> list of features that are in Vista but not in XP, he continues to claim
> there's nothing in Vista other than a skin change.
>
> Fine, if Roy wants to ignore the facts, that's his perogative.
Strange fellow he is at times. He seems to believe that Microsoft is
failing/imploding/self-destructing and some of the weaker minds here
have read it enough where they actually believe it too.
Interesting "opinion" (although he often states it as if it were
factual) on a company that continually sets record sales (in excess of
$44 Billion/year) and record profits (of over $1 Billion per MONTH).
Hard to believe that anyone can be so out-of-touch with reality and
actually believe such tripe.
> The
> problem though is that he's relatively well respected here, and people will
> actually believe him when he says there's nothing in Vista other than a skin
> change. Witness my discussion with Peter Kohlmann, for example. Roy is
> *intentionally* spreading misinformation about Vista. Why would he do that?
> He otherwise seems like a perfectly reasonable person. I'm really surprised
> and disappointed about this behaviour, and I've lost a lot of respect for
> Roy over this.
>
> Vista *ISN'T* that great. That 32 page long list of features? Linux has
> probably had 95% of them (if not more) 5 years ago. So why bother lying
> about Vista and claiming those features aren't there? All that does is hurts
> your credibility, and weakens any further messages you might try to convey
> as an advocate. In other words, lying about Vista is HURTING the advocacy.
>
> - Oliver
|
|
