Roy Schestowitz wrote:
> ____/ Peter Köhlmann on Wednesday 19 September 2007 23:45 : \____
>
>> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>
>>> ____/ Peter Köhlmann on Wednesday 19 September 2007 21:23 : \____
>>>
>>>> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> ____/ Peter Köhlmann on Wednesday 19 September 2007 17:30 : \____
>>>>>
>>>>>> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ____/ Peter Köhlmann on Wednesday 19 September 2007 10:10 : \____
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ____/ Peter Köhlmann on Wednesday 19 September 2007 09:10 : \____
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> http://news.opensuse.org/?p=265
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Just another example of the "bad" Novell
>>>>>>>>>>> Right, Roy? Mark?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If it wasn't them, it would be someone else (possibly Red Hat).
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> But it *is* them
>>>>>>>>> And they work since *four* *month* with AMD people on this
>>>>>>>>> project. That it is now public has to do with the fact that before
>>>>>>>>> disclosing it they had to clear up technical and legal things
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You can't simply shrug it off and ascertain that it "would have
>>>>>>>>> been someone else". Because it isn't. And SuSE/Novell have for a
>>>>>>>>> long time worked on X and drivers for it. In fact, a large chunk
>>>>>>>>> of the existing drivers where done by people paid by SuSE
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This just to show that your disqualifying Novell for no good
>>>>>>>>> reason is somewhat dubious. I don't like the attitude of several
>>>>>>>>> "advocates" to partition the linux world
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> BTW, it is SuSE partly because AMD has historical reasons for
>>>>>>>> working with them, as SuSE did a lot of the 64bit-implementation
>>>>>>>> for AMD64. Another reason why it is not simply "someone else would
>>>>>>>> have done it"
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Here is some more background info
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://egbert-e.livejournal.com/359.html
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Fair point. I would still say that the harms they bring outweigh the
>>>>>>> benefits. There's no doubt about it -- Novell tries to help Linux
>>>>>>> too, but some of the routes it takes are selfish and damaging to
>>>>>>> Linux /as a whole/.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well, Roy, *you* (and others) claim that Novell is "damaging linux".
>>>>>> But so far I have seen nothing at all which would substantiate that
>>>>>> claim. Just some wild speculations. Frankly, that is not very
>>>>>> convincing
>>>>>
>>>>> There are many ways in which Novell harms Linux and I wrote a lot
>>>>> about it.
>>>>
>>>> Yes. And I found every bit of it as convincing as DFSs idiotic rants.
>>>> Most of it even less convincing, if possible at all. It was nearly as
>>>> lunatic as a "7" post
>>>>
>>>>> I used to like Novell for its relationship with Linux, but its new
>>>>> relationship with Microsoft now seems equally important to them (even
>>>>> if it means hurting Linux for Novell's own, short-term benefit).
>>>>
>>>> You are not privy to their terms with MS. *Everything* you write on
>>>> those terms is simply wild speculation.
>>>>
>>>>> If Novell
>>>>> kills its supplier, it will be left with nothing. It's like selling
>>>>> your mom's blood for profit.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> See? You spout some wild speculation. And then you have the nerve to
>>>> think that I should accept that as "evidence" or even as "fact"
>>>>
>>>> No way. I am simply not singleminded enough for that claptrap
>>>
>>> I have used literally *thousands* of peripheral citations to support
>>> everything I write in bn.com.
>>
>> Certainly. They were all soooo convincing. Each and every of those
>> followed the "Yowl. Novell is soo uncool" mantra. And *none* provided any
>> support at all for the claims made. Just wild speculations
>>
>>> It is based on evidence
>>
>> What "evidence"? You have yet to provide *any* evidence that
>> your "boycott.novell" dumbshit has any relation to reality
>>
>>> and one just needs
>>> to follow the cross- and external references.
>>>
>>
>> Fine. Then feel free to provide the very first of those links. You know:
>> Those which point to actual evidence. And not just complete, utter
>> bullshit
>
> Novell admits selfishness...
>
> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,231047,00.html
Feel free to point us to the exact place where they admitted that.
The article says nothing at all about that
Roy, do us all a favour: Do some basic reading comprehension course
Currently, you rate just slightly better than Hadron Quark
> Novell's "superb standard"...
>
> http://linux.slashdot.org/linux/07/09/10/2343256.shtml
>
/quote
de lcaza calls OOXML a "Superb Standard"
/unquote
Since when is "de lcaza" Novell, Roy?
> Only Novell can distribute Moonlight...
>
>
http://blogs.cnet.com/5530-13505_1-0-10.html?forumID=166&messageID=2490312&threadID=228078
>
/quote
Bruce Lowry of Novell's PR team here. You state in this piece that the only
Linux Silverlight will run on is SUSE Linux Enterprise (citing,
incidentally, a site called Boycott Novell, which one can surmise from its
name is not objective). This isn't correct. Using Moonlight, Silverlight
will run on any Linux distro supported by Mono, which is most of the major
distros.
/unquote
The fact that the contract only allows Novell to *bundle* it with the distro
is "damaging Linux" exactly how?
> Many, many more...
>
Roy, just spare us the expense of time, if your "examples" have
similar "qualities" like these here.
Let us call it this way: You, Mark, "7" and some others are blind, nutty
zealots when it comes to Novell and/or MS. Your "arguments" are so
completely nutty that you better not tell them to someone with half a
working brain
--
I doubt, therefore I might be.
|
|
