On Sun, 14 May 2006 18:42:08 +0100, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
> __/ [ Kier ] on Sunday 14 May 2006 16:16 \__
>> On Sun, 14 May 2006 17:01:41 +0200, Roy Culley wrote:
>>> begin risky.vbs
>>> "Larry Qualig" <lqualig@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>>> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>>>> Yes, it keeps the group on topic. I remember what it was like some
>>>>> months ago. Other groups participants tend to agree.
>>>> Looking at some of the recent "News" threads you've started it seems
>>>> that the "on topic" you're talking about has nothing to do with
>>>> Linux, but everything to do with a everything anti-Microsoft
>>>> [News] Architectural Windows Flaws
>>>> [News] Microsoft Set to Stone Self
>>>> [News] Vista Bugs Bounty Hunt Begins
>>>> [News] Microsoft Said to Have Bribed GoDaddy
>>>> [News] Microsoft Earns Money from Bad Server Patch
>>> When I first subscribed to COLA I used to often add [OT] to anti-MS
>>> articles I posted. The FUD and lies spread not only by trolls but MS
>>> themselves (OSS anti-American, GPL a virus, etc) convinced me that
>>> anti-MS posts are most certainly appropriate and within the charter
>>> for COLA.
>> Countering anti-Linux stuff is, yes, but posting deliberate anti-MS stuff
>> just adds fuel to the fire a lot of the time, IMO. What good does it do?
> Thanks, Kier. Your opinion will definitely be taken into consideration in
> the future. I will try to balance my posts accordingly. However, /do/ bear
> in mind that Microsoft-centered posts are often comparisons with other
> operating systems. This comes to present things in perspective. Benchmarks
> are disallowed to a considerable extent by the EULA. Media is too
> reluctant to go against the giant, as well.
I think comparison is fine, it's just too often it becomes a 'your OS is
shit' kind of matter, which I believe is in the end counter-productive.
> The real facts must be voiced /somewhere/. Back in my teenage years, I was
> at times filled with fury over Microsoft's illegal acts. It's not time to
> retaliate. It's time to disclose some truths.
Definitely. But we should be careful not to go overboard in the opposite
direction. Moderation is much more persuasive.
> Example: when did the media blame Windows loopholes for all that spam we
> get? When were botmasters said to be taking advantage of Windows flaws?
Rarely, which is a pity.
> Where was it stated clearly that Linux TCO is very low? Definitely not is
> a Google searches for 'linux', which Microsoft have bought. The O/S
> industry is in a very morbid state if Windows evangelist openly admit that
> Mac OS X is better and yet very few people use it.
>>>> The term "news" would be more accurate if it was truly news and less
>>>> opinions. (Hint: Linking to a blog entry where someone whines
>>>> against Microsoft is *not* news.) In many cases the titles of these
>>>> threads is anything but accurate.
>>> The [News] subject tag was added by Roy when another poster said he
>>> didn't want to see these posts but wanted to see other posts made by
>>> Roy. The majority of the threads started by Roy are News. Of course he
>>> can change the tag to anything he wants but there'll allways be
>>> someone who objects. Your criticism is extremely petty.
>> Frankly, not really. It's an observation which I share to some extent.
>> Shouldn't we be posting good news about Linux? Who cares about MS? Fuck
>> 'em, that's what I say.
> It may sound simple, but people are innately resistant to change. You
> must open their eyes to damage that is done to them at present in order
> for enlightenment and research to begin. Many people will not even
> *explore* Linux until they have become fed up with Windows and found some
> consent/condolences. A Google search pointing to COLA may assist that
> crucial turning point.
Which I don't dispute, but don't you think a lot of anti-MS stuff may put
them off? If Windows users are called idiots, what kind of impression do
you think they'll get from it? It can't do much to encourage a Windowsuser
to swap to Linux.
>> There are times when something which is anti-MS is appropriate, but
>> mostly, it's just irrelevant.
> Oh, yeah? See sig. *smile*