On Mar 26, 3:49 pm, Doctor Smith <iaintgotnostinkinem...@xxxxxxx>
> On Thu, 26 Mar 2009 14:44:32 -0500, Doctor Smith wrote:
> > Narcissistic Schestowitz puts up a voting application so that people can
> > cast votes with regard to the articles and commentary he has on the site.
> > So he gets slammed with less than great results and now he is crying like a
> > baby that the system, which he installed, is flawed and it can't be his
> > site etc.
> > What a wanker this Roy Schestowitz is.
> > This comment says it all:
> > "JohnD Reply:
> > March 25th, 2009 at 11:25 pm
> > Itÿs hard to assert something that has yet to pass. Roy is making
> > assumptions about future events based upon past actions. While they may be
> > reasonable assumptions based upon what is currently known, they are not
> > facts.
> > Only time can tell us if Roy will be right or wrong. I hope that most of
> > Royÿs predictions do not come to pass, not because of a blind devotion to
> > Novell or ill will towards Roy, but because of the ramifications on the IT
> > industry.
> > I firmly believe that the best solution is to find a balance that allows
> > patents and FOSS to exist side by side
> > Here is another and Roy considers this guy a Novell plant because, get
> > this, he happens to LIVE near Novell headquaters!!
> > Yep...
> > That Schestowitz is a regular Dickless Tracy,.......
> > "Dan O'Brian Reply:
> > March 25th, 2009 at 9:35 pm
> > Hello, Iÿm Dan OÿBrian - I have no affiliation with Microsoft nor Novell
> > and I think Roy is a flaming retard who clearly fails at researching his
> > arguments before publishing them (while often they mistakenly accuse
> > individuals and/or projects of wrong-doing when it isnÿt true, making
> > excuses like ´oh, I didnÿt have time to proofread or research because it
> > gets in the way of my style¡).
> > If Roy stopped publishing accusatory ´news articles¡ without proper
> > evidence, my interest in this site would be lost and Iÿd disappear.
> > VA:F [1.1.7_509] "
> Here is more regarding poor Roy who can't handle the truth!
> Dan O'Brian Reply:
> March 25th, 2009 at 8:28 pm
> Roy spreads a lot of false information (Roy claims you canÿt write a GPLv3
> application if you link with X11 libs? what?), attacking innocent
> individuals (thinking of a particular Wikipedia user for instance), and a
> plethora of other trollish behavior.
Roy started that site shortly after Microsoft made their "deal" with
Novell. There were two points of view, one group assumed that Novell
was effectively "selling" control of Linux to Microsoft. Others, like
myself sa it as more of an attempt to discredit Novell, a very
effective competitor in server space and very aggressive competitor
going after the OEM desktop market.
It turns out that both views were partially correct.
Prior to the deal, Novell had been very aggressively going after Dell,
HP, and Toshiba, all of which had formally and publicly announced
offerings of PCs shipped with SUSE Linux pre-installed. Within 48
hours after each announcement, the OEMs recanted, apparently after
some extremely intense countermeasures from Microsoft (threat of
Windows License Rovocations?)
In addition, each of these OEMs had raised complaints during the DOJ
Settlement review hearings prior to the "buy-off" and since the "buy-
off" Novell has not even attempted to push for Judicial intervention,
probably because it seemed so futile (the DOJ stone-walled each
On the other hand, Microsoft DID managed to get Novell to give up
control of Xen, and turned it over to long-time Microsoft partner,
Citrix. Citrix has lobotomized Xen, has not even attempted to improve
the offerings, offer appliance libraries, and in other ways push to
get co-resident Linux and Windows on the desktops and laptops.
Meanwhile, Novell has lost the ability to offer the strategy of
providing OEMs with a solution that permits BOTH Linux and Windows to
> Itÿs really not surprising that he gets voted down.
I also don't agree with all of Roy's opinions on software patents.
The problem with software patents is two-fold. First, the rate of
rapid implementations and the ability to independently "intuitively
derive" similar, even better, technologies than those that are
patented, without ever seeing the source code to the patented device
(code) limits the practical life of a patent. You still can't patent
an idea, only a specific implementation of an idea.
The other problem with patents is that there was almost 50 years of
software development that was done prior to the liberalization of
patent laws allowing software to be patented. Too often, patents are
fraudulently obtained by lawyers who limit their patent searches and
citations for prior art to previously filed patents.
The reality is that about 90% of the patents would be denied or
nullified once it became obvious that the person charged with
"violating" the patent had intuitively derived the solution based on
publicly available OSS implementations of similar functionality, and
that the patent "owner" was aware of these OSS implementations and did
not list this prior art in their patent application.
The biggest problem with patents is that they can only be used
defensively, and it costs a LOT of money and resources to create an
effective patent "umbrella" that can protect you from ambulance
chasers who have decided that software patent fraud is much more
profitable and less risky than insurance fraud.
> Face it, Roy put up the voting system to massage his own ego thinking
> everyone loved him and would vote his poorly researched articles a 10/10.
> It backfired. Get over it.
> VA:F [1.1.7_509]
On the other hand, Roy does provide very useful and practical
information, especially about Linux, to this group. Not all of his
topics are big "hits", but he does generate some great discussions,
and many of his unchallenged postings are great reference material to
someone who is trying to introduce Linux to an organization, or want
to use Linux for server or desktop solutions.
Keep up the good work Roy. I don't always agree with you, but I do
find your posts interesting and informative.