Tim Smith <reply_in_group@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> In article <8651232.JPs87FcIDV@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
> Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >> Roy said you could publish the code, so why don't you? Don't you want
>> >> people to be able to verify the accuracy of your stats?
>>
>> These repetitive posts of yours have become tedious. You are acting like a
>> 5-year-old.
>
> Does the same apply to your repetitive posts?
>
> Suppose someone posted a claim about you, with no support. You ask for
> support. If they refuse to provide support, and then repost the claim,
> do you think you should no longer ask for them to support the claim?
>
> The situation is particularly amusing with [H]omer, Culley, etc.,
> because pretty much everything they've said about open source software
> vs. closed source software argues for them posting the source, if they
> actually believe what they've said. But [H]omer is just a troll with no
> integrity, so he *can't* post the source, and every time he's asked and
> refuses, it makes him look worse and worse.
What *is* the reason they don't post it? I would have thought as Linux
and OSS advocates they would want to share the code and the knowledge
behind the wonderful newsgroup stats. The fact that they don't suggests
to me that they have something to hide. God knows they criticise MS
enough for closed source. Rarely does one see such an obvious case of
hypocrisy. Anyone would think it wasn't their code to publish or
something.
--
Kotex, n.:
Not the best thing on earth, but next to the best.
|
|
