__/ [felmon davis] on Wednesday 04 January 2006 15:00 \__
> On Wed, 04 Jan 2006 09:10:54 +0000, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>> I thought that any
>> message that target Microsoft Windows directly misses the point of
>> advocating Linux. I still abide by this belief, but evidently I reply to
>> the wrong partent. *smile*
> I don't get the idea that advocacy means ignoring Windows. I am reading
> through a thread on threads/processes (Windows API) and though I know
> little about real programming, especially at this depth, it is an
> interesting and instructive discussion (so far as I've gotten). it
> wouldn't be possible without talking about Windows.
> maybe you mean something specific with the word 'targetting'.
> (sorry, I didn't understand 'partent'?)
> I don't see why comparisons - pro and con - don't constitute 'advocacy'.
> and if someone advocates for Linux, why shouldn't someone of
> contrary opinion advocate against it?
Criticism of Windows is much like attack of the rival rather than
self-improvement. It is similar to locking the competition out using
proprietary formats and undocumented communication channels, as opposed to
innovation that compels users to stick.
When I said "parent" I was referring to the original post (or patron), which
was clearly attacking Windows rather than expressing satisfaction with Linux
security. This tends to attract Windows advocates who feel strongly enough
about their operating system. Some will defend it in the most Neanderthal of
ways by insulting people in this group. This entails a small flamewar that
only wastes people's time and drains emotions. By replying with anger or
ridicule (often contrariwise to advocacy), you're asking for more hate
threads that become fishy (pun intended) and promote more /flatfish/ parent
threads. Such threads have quite a deep hierarchy, not flat (pun intended
I know a comparative analysis is often necessary, but experience has taught
me that it becomes a repellent. When I first subscribed to the group, I
could not discern the trolls from the regulars or even spot the pathological
liars. When you identify your friends, that's when discussion tend to remain
That's generally the way I feel about it, buy others will disagree and I very
much respect that and can at times agree with them, by all means.