LindowsOS moves to a new low
-
f1shlips wrote: I didn't regard the Plug and Play vulnerability as overhyped, neither did the FBI. Ah, the FBI, that means it must be important. *choke* I have yet to hear from or meet a single person or corporation affected by this so called critical security risk. Come to think of it though, I have met very few people who have even been infected by Windows-based viruses, etc (including corporations using Window's servers running critical applications). I guess none of those viruses where overhyped then? However, that was not what I was getting at. What I was getting at was the e-mail "overhyping" (is that a word?) Microsoft products' security flaws in general. It's what you get from a site like that. The badder the news (or at least the meaner they make it sound) the more copies they will "sell". It's an age old trick. f1shlips wrote: Are the opinions of CodeProjecters a valid source? The fine folks at MacAddict? I like to think of them as valid when salted. Did you look at the polls like I mentioned? Would you say they are a fair sample of people from the IT industry? No. Some polls were left re-done each week just so that the minority opinions could be double counted. That is hardly the practise of an unbiased news source now is it? f1shlips wrote: I just don't see a valid computerWorld email as deceptive. The e-mail from CW itself is drawing on FUD too, but I was referring to the screenshot in general. There are far too many such e-mails floating around on all kinds of newsgroups, mailing lists, etc, to categorise them all individually. The use of the e-mail in the context they used it in is solely for the purposes of fear, uncertainty and doubt. F.U.D. There was no need for it to be there, and certainly no need for it to be deliberately scrolled into position like so. f1shlips wrote: If you say so. Is it stupid for Microsoft to slander Linux, Sun, IBM, or anyone else? How many times must I say "in the same circumstances"? f1shlips wrote: And your double standards and poor attitude Such as? If you are going to start a personal attack on me, of all people, you have to at least state your grounds. f1shlips wrote: I don't believe the name Lindows (or LindowsOS) is harmful to consumers, nor do I think it's any more disturbing than "gaim" for the Linux AIM messenger product. I kn
>Ah, the FBI, that means it must be important. It adds to it. It means there is more than a bunch of Linux zealots annotating it as a security risk. >I have yet to hear from or meet a single person or corporation affected by this so called critical security risk. Thankfully, but the potential is/was there. Of course by your comments, I safe in aassuming you think it wasn't there? It's not a pontential hole because David Wulff said so. Is Bill's email a fake? Is the 30 day moratorium on new code a sham? I don't think so, but I could be wrong. I think Microsoft will fix the few problems that exist in some products and it will make those products that much better. >>And your double standards and poor attitude >Such as? Like I said, the inability to assign wrong to Microsoft and the quick assesment of "evil company" to Lindows because of a single screenshot. It's the same attitude that drives the Linux zealots. I find the attitude unproductive. >Did you look at the polls like I mentioned? Would you say they are a fair sample of people from the IT industry? No. Some polls were left re-done each week just so that the minority opinions could be double counted. No I didn't look at the polls, I already know where their readership lies. They're not the only ones who do the same thing, but I don't think a tit-for-tat on poll stuffing would reveal anything usefull. >That is hardly the practise of an unbiased news source now is it? Nope, here's your salt. >Trademarks are not given universally, they are given for specific classes of product or service. Thanks, that sure was helpful. I still feel that it's a bad idea to give out trademarks for common names; such as Windows instead of Microsoft Windows. >>Thats a funny sentiment, because [snip] >How so? The part after the because addressed how so. >Did I say or imply otherwise? No. We are talking about Lindows here [snip] Oh, you don't know what Lindows is? Got this from slashdot and its hosted on the news outlet of sourceforge (might be biased) http://www.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=02/01/25/1811226&mode=thread >>If you say so. Is it stupid for Microsoft to slander Linux, Sun, IBM, or anyone else? >How many times must I say "in the same circumstances"? As many times as you feel necessary, but is it stupid for Microsoft to slander Linux, Sun, IBM, or anyone else? >>Are the opinions of CodeProjecters a valid source? The fine folks at MacAddict? I like to think of them as valid when salted. >Did you look at the polls li
-
Believe it or not, I was full of sympathy for the Linux start-up Lindows, mainly because it is a brilliant, and well overdue However, it is obvious that they choose their name poorly, and should indeed be forced to change it. (Their argument that it is "technically" called LindowsOS, and therefore Microsoft has no case against them is complete and utter crap considering they themselves constantly refer to it as just Lindows). Anyway, as I was saying: I was sympathetic towards them until I saw this publicity stunt. If they have nothing to fear, why are they using FUD like that? Can you imagine the flak (including law suits) that a certain Redmond based company would get if it tried to pull the same thing off against a competing product or company - given the same circumstances? LindowsOS know full well they can get away with dirty techniques like that 'cause if Microsoft do anything about it they will twist it around to their own favour. That is why I have lost all respect for them. :mad: (If you feel inclined to flame me, please remember the line above that I have underlined.) ________________ David Wulff http://www.davidwulff.co.uk "DON'T MOVE! It can't see you if you don't move" - Sam Neil talking to me as John Simmons walked into the office.
>> Believe it or not, I was full of sympathy for the Linux start-up Lindows I don't >> Anyway, as I was saying: I was sympathetic towards them until I saw this publicity stunt. If they have nothing to fear, why are they using FUD like that? [snip] >> LindowsOS know full well they can get away with dirty techniques like that 'cause if Microsoft do anything about it they will twist it around to their own favour. That is why I have lost all respect for them. You really are a delicate little petal. Everyone knows that there are regular security issues associated with Windows (however serious or not serious you may think they are) and anyone living on this planet should expect Microsoft's competitors to draw attention to this fact. John Carson
-
>Ah, the FBI, that means it must be important. It adds to it. It means there is more than a bunch of Linux zealots annotating it as a security risk. >I have yet to hear from or meet a single person or corporation affected by this so called critical security risk. Thankfully, but the potential is/was there. Of course by your comments, I safe in aassuming you think it wasn't there? It's not a pontential hole because David Wulff said so. Is Bill's email a fake? Is the 30 day moratorium on new code a sham? I don't think so, but I could be wrong. I think Microsoft will fix the few problems that exist in some products and it will make those products that much better. >>And your double standards and poor attitude >Such as? Like I said, the inability to assign wrong to Microsoft and the quick assesment of "evil company" to Lindows because of a single screenshot. It's the same attitude that drives the Linux zealots. I find the attitude unproductive. >Did you look at the polls like I mentioned? Would you say they are a fair sample of people from the IT industry? No. Some polls were left re-done each week just so that the minority opinions could be double counted. No I didn't look at the polls, I already know where their readership lies. They're not the only ones who do the same thing, but I don't think a tit-for-tat on poll stuffing would reveal anything usefull. >That is hardly the practise of an unbiased news source now is it? Nope, here's your salt. >Trademarks are not given universally, they are given for specific classes of product or service. Thanks, that sure was helpful. I still feel that it's a bad idea to give out trademarks for common names; such as Windows instead of Microsoft Windows. >>Thats a funny sentiment, because [snip] >How so? The part after the because addressed how so. >Did I say or imply otherwise? No. We are talking about Lindows here [snip] Oh, you don't know what Lindows is? Got this from slashdot and its hosted on the news outlet of sourceforge (might be biased) http://www.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=02/01/25/1811226&mode=thread >>If you say so. Is it stupid for Microsoft to slander Linux, Sun, IBM, or anyone else? >How many times must I say "in the same circumstances"? As many times as you feel necessary, but is it stupid for Microsoft to slander Linux, Sun, IBM, or anyone else? >>Are the opinions of CodeProjecters a valid source? The fine folks at MacAddict? I like to think of them as valid when salted. >Did you look at the polls li
f1shlips wrote: Of course by your comments, I safe in aassuming you think it wasn't there? It's not a pontential hole because David Wulff said so. That is not what I said, nor what I have implied. The risk (look that word up in a dictionary) was very real, just as there is a risk that I will catch and die from a variant strain of TB by taking the bus to work in the morning, but that doesn't mean all bus passengers need to where biohazzard suits. It's all about perception in the real world. If you are a government agency, then by all means treat every risk as the fortelling of the apocalypse, but for 99.99% of the corporations and homer users out there, this is not - and never will be - a real threat. I keep up-to-date with hot fixes and service packs on all my software, Microsoft or otherwise, but I do so to for the bug fixes and stability improvements rather than the security fixes. I follow a few simple and commonsense rules to protect my machines, just as I would to protect my body. f1shlips wrote: Like I said, the inability to assign wrong to Microsoft Look, mate, I'm sorry it has come to this, but your lack of reading skills, and/or your own inability to visualise my words inside your brain has left me no choice: We are talking about this specific case here, not the business practises of either company in general. Would you like me to repeat that, or would you just prefer to read it again a few times till it settles in? Maybe you could try printing it out and placing it under your pillow - I find that helps sometimes. I could even send it to you on a repeating casette tape for a small fee. I'm among the first to admit that Microsoft's business practises are not angelic. However, and don't kid yourself here, they are no different from any other company's given the same circumstances. The corporate world has no space for big companies that play ball fairly - they are the ones that have profit/loss charts that resemble Mt. Everest. f1shlips wrote: but I don't think a tit-for-tat on poll stuffing would reveal anything usefull Nothing useful, except from providing proof to the countrary of your credibility arguments, but I wouldn't expect you to state that. f1shlips wrote: Nope, here's your salt. I don't take salt, it is bad for your health. I simply ignore salt-worthy sources outside of humour and/or satire. f1shlip
-
>> Believe it or not, I was full of sympathy for the Linux start-up Lindows I don't >> Anyway, as I was saying: I was sympathetic towards them until I saw this publicity stunt. If they have nothing to fear, why are they using FUD like that? [snip] >> LindowsOS know full well they can get away with dirty techniques like that 'cause if Microsoft do anything about it they will twist it around to their own favour. That is why I have lost all respect for them. You really are a delicate little petal. Everyone knows that there are regular security issues associated with Windows (however serious or not serious you may think they are) and anyone living on this planet should expect Microsoft's competitors to draw attention to this fact. John Carson
John Carson wrote: I don't Well I was. Anything to increase the user base I can target , and thus my clients' user base, and thus the amount of work I get, is in to my advantage. I don't know how you could assume otherwise. :confused: John Carson wrote: You really are a delicate little petal I must put that in my little book of insults... John Carson wrote: Everyone knows that there are regular security issues associated with Windows (however serious or not serious you may think they are) and anyone living on this planet should expect Microsoft's competitors to draw attention to this fact. dum de dum de dum de dum de dum de dum de dum de dum de dum de dum de dum de dum de dum de dum de dum de ** slight pause as David brings himself back from the edge of insanity ** We are not talking about the threat, perceived or real, of Windows, the right to bear firearms, or the extermination of the lesser spotted common weavel. The frequency of the issues, or the fixes, average out to about the same each year whatever platform you are analysing. I for one would rather wait two weeks for a fix from Microsoft that actually fixes the issue, rather than a hack released overnight followed by a full patch (usually rolled into a point release) that follows eight weeks later. However, this is not the topic fo discussion, though I find myself saying that a lot at the moment... :| >> should expect Microsoft's competitors to draw attention to this fact. Let's draw up an analogy to make this a little less religious for some people: ---- Mike's Glass and Window Company Limited designs and produces a new type of glass product, which they are marketing as "ElastoGlass Elite". Global window Fittings PLC produce a competing glass product called "Elastoglas". Regardless of what Mike's Glass and Window Company Limited registered the name as, it will be called ElastoGlass by consumers. Global Window Fittings PLC ask Mike nicely to change the name as it infringes on their trademark. Mike, knowing full well that the media loves to take shots at Global Window Fittings PLC, says the mark does not infringe and they wont change it. They also know full well that GWF PLC will take them to IP court over this, and that the media will be nothing but good for Mike's Glass and Window Company Limited. GWF PLC file suit to prevent Mike's company from using their trademark. Mike's Glass and Window Company Limited go to
-
Believe it or not, I was full of sympathy for the Linux start-up Lindows, mainly because it is a brilliant, and well overdue However, it is obvious that they choose their name poorly, and should indeed be forced to change it. (Their argument that it is "technically" called LindowsOS, and therefore Microsoft has no case against them is complete and utter crap considering they themselves constantly refer to it as just Lindows). Anyway, as I was saying: I was sympathetic towards them until I saw this publicity stunt. If they have nothing to fear, why are they using FUD like that? Can you imagine the flak (including law suits) that a certain Redmond based company would get if it tried to pull the same thing off against a competing product or company - given the same circumstances? LindowsOS know full well they can get away with dirty techniques like that 'cause if Microsoft do anything about it they will twist it around to their own favour. That is why I have lost all respect for them. :mad: (If you feel inclined to flame me, please remember the line above that I have underlined.) ________________ David Wulff http://www.davidwulff.co.uk "DON'T MOVE! It can't see you if you don't move" - Sam Neil talking to me as John Simmons walked into the office.
Interesting. So if Microsoft was say stuffing voting boxes that would be ok by you? And when Microsoft has their binary compatable Posix/Linux layer working, and have nastymail from msn.com on it, then what will you say? But that's ok, we all understand your bias.
Si hoc Legere Scis Nimium Eruditionis Habes
-
John Carson wrote: I don't Well I was. Anything to increase the user base I can target , and thus my clients' user base, and thus the amount of work I get, is in to my advantage. I don't know how you could assume otherwise. :confused: John Carson wrote: You really are a delicate little petal I must put that in my little book of insults... John Carson wrote: Everyone knows that there are regular security issues associated with Windows (however serious or not serious you may think they are) and anyone living on this planet should expect Microsoft's competitors to draw attention to this fact. dum de dum de dum de dum de dum de dum de dum de dum de dum de dum de dum de dum de dum de dum de dum de ** slight pause as David brings himself back from the edge of insanity ** We are not talking about the threat, perceived or real, of Windows, the right to bear firearms, or the extermination of the lesser spotted common weavel. The frequency of the issues, or the fixes, average out to about the same each year whatever platform you are analysing. I for one would rather wait two weeks for a fix from Microsoft that actually fixes the issue, rather than a hack released overnight followed by a full patch (usually rolled into a point release) that follows eight weeks later. However, this is not the topic fo discussion, though I find myself saying that a lot at the moment... :| >> should expect Microsoft's competitors to draw attention to this fact. Let's draw up an analogy to make this a little less religious for some people: ---- Mike's Glass and Window Company Limited designs and produces a new type of glass product, which they are marketing as "ElastoGlass Elite". Global window Fittings PLC produce a competing glass product called "Elastoglas". Regardless of what Mike's Glass and Window Company Limited registered the name as, it will be called ElastoGlass by consumers. Global Window Fittings PLC ask Mike nicely to change the name as it infringes on their trademark. Mike, knowing full well that the media loves to take shots at Global Window Fittings PLC, says the mark does not infringe and they wont change it. They also know full well that GWF PLC will take them to IP court over this, and that the media will be nothing but good for Mike's Glass and Window Company Limited. GWF PLC file suit to prevent Mike's company from using their trademark. Mike's Glass and Window Company Limited go to
A splendid piece of dishonest argumentation. Your original post said: "I was sympathetic towards them until I saw this publicity stunt." Thus, by your own testimony, you lost sympathy some time AFTER you knew of the name Lindows. Your post expressed outrage over the fact that a screen shot from Lindows showed an email message unflattering to Microsoft on security matters. These were "dirty techniques ... That is why I have lost all respect for them." My post responded to this absurd over-reaction to a perfectly normal dig from a firm at a competitor. My post said nothing about the issue of the name Lindows nor about Windows vs Linux on security. Your response does nothing to defend your original absurd over-reaction. You quote my remark that anyone should expect Microsoft's competitors to draw attention to security issues and respond by going off at a complete tangent about the name issue. I must say that I agree with you on the name issue. It is easy to get confused. Just today, I listened to a sand and then went for a walk along the band. Then I took a coat trip and it was so windy that I put on my boat. When I got home, I retired to my pen and wrote some notes with my blue den. I then opened up the floor and swept the door. It is hard to dope when you are a cope. That is why I think Microsoft should be prevented from using the name Windows. People will confuse it with XWindows.:) John Carson
-
f1shlips wrote: Of course by your comments, I safe in aassuming you think it wasn't there? It's not a pontential hole because David Wulff said so. That is not what I said, nor what I have implied. The risk (look that word up in a dictionary) was very real, just as there is a risk that I will catch and die from a variant strain of TB by taking the bus to work in the morning, but that doesn't mean all bus passengers need to where biohazzard suits. It's all about perception in the real world. If you are a government agency, then by all means treat every risk as the fortelling of the apocalypse, but for 99.99% of the corporations and homer users out there, this is not - and never will be - a real threat. I keep up-to-date with hot fixes and service packs on all my software, Microsoft or otherwise, but I do so to for the bug fixes and stability improvements rather than the security fixes. I follow a few simple and commonsense rules to protect my machines, just as I would to protect my body. f1shlips wrote: Like I said, the inability to assign wrong to Microsoft Look, mate, I'm sorry it has come to this, but your lack of reading skills, and/or your own inability to visualise my words inside your brain has left me no choice: We are talking about this specific case here, not the business practises of either company in general. Would you like me to repeat that, or would you just prefer to read it again a few times till it settles in? Maybe you could try printing it out and placing it under your pillow - I find that helps sometimes. I could even send it to you on a repeating casette tape for a small fee. I'm among the first to admit that Microsoft's business practises are not angelic. However, and don't kid yourself here, they are no different from any other company's given the same circumstances. The corporate world has no space for big companies that play ball fairly - they are the ones that have profit/loss charts that resemble Mt. Everest. f1shlips wrote: but I don't think a tit-for-tat on poll stuffing would reveal anything usefull Nothing useful, except from providing proof to the countrary of your credibility arguments, but I wouldn't expect you to state that. f1shlips wrote: Nope, here's your salt. I don't take salt, it is bad for your health. I simply ignore salt-worthy sources outside of humour and/or satire. f1shlip
>That is not what I said, nor what I have implied. Yes you did: You:What I was getting at was the e-mail "overhyping" (is that a word?) Microsoft products' security flaws in general. Me: I didn't regard the Plug and Play vulnerability as overhyped, neither did the FBI. You: Ah, the FBI, that means it must be important. *choke* Me:It adds to it. It means there is more than a bunch of Linux zealots annotating it as a security risk. You:I have yet to hear from or meet a single person or corporation affected by this so called critical security risk. Me:Of course by your comments, I safe in aassuming you think it wasn't there? It's not a pontential hole because David Wulff said so. You:That is not what I said, nor what I have implied. You: Since when have we been talking about Windows' security issues? >Again I will repeat: we are not discussing this topic at all. Actually we are, I talked about it and you responded. Thats a conversation no matter how many innane and useless protests you make about it not being a conversation. >We are talking about this specific case here, not the business practises of either company in general. Actually, you're trying to confine any digressions to whatever topic you choose. I'm trying to make the point that you were quick to condemn the Lindows folks for their "backhanded dirty marketting practices, with F.U.D. stamped all over it.", but you haven't doled out the same sentence to Microsoft for similiar tactics. Making that point required me to bring in other issues. >Presumably you would extend this to cover Office too? Yes, they couldn't trademark Office, just Microsoft Office. It was a difficult battle for Microsoft to trademark Windows. A short one line opinion can't possible cover every situation you could imagaine, but I think surnames like Janes are generally ok. C++ would not be a good trademark, but Microsoft C++ or Visual C++ would. Even Windows XP, Windows NT, and Microsoft Windows are ok. >If all trademarked "words" had to be unique non-common words (under all known languages), we would run out words fast. It's difficult to trademark a single word, irrespective of the class. I recently hired a firm to do a search on a product name (for an embedded device) containing the word 'Wizard', and in their report, they advised against it because of the word 'Wizard'. It is because of the limited nature of words and names that we have trademarks (excluding images, logos, or any other product art). >Nothing useful, except from providing proof to
-
Interesting. So if Microsoft was say stuffing voting boxes that would be ok by you? And when Microsoft has their binary compatable Posix/Linux layer working, and have nastymail from msn.com on it, then what will you say? But that's ok, we all understand your bias.
Si hoc Legere Scis Nimium Eruditionis Habes
So far you, John, and the formula one guy have all gone off on the wrong tangent. I did say very cleary to take into consideration the underlined text and understand why I underlined it. If you can't even grasp that, why are you contributing to the conversation? Would you go into a hospital and start giving out drugs if you didn't understand what they did? I hope not. The only people who have expressed an understanding of my point have had to do so privately via my inbox just to keep out of these pointless offtopic sub-threads. :( ________________ David Wulff http://www.davidwulff.co.uk "DON'T MOVE! It can't see you if you don't move" - Sam Neil talking to me as John Simmons walked into the office.
-
A splendid piece of dishonest argumentation. Your original post said: "I was sympathetic towards them until I saw this publicity stunt." Thus, by your own testimony, you lost sympathy some time AFTER you knew of the name Lindows. Your post expressed outrage over the fact that a screen shot from Lindows showed an email message unflattering to Microsoft on security matters. These were "dirty techniques ... That is why I have lost all respect for them." My post responded to this absurd over-reaction to a perfectly normal dig from a firm at a competitor. My post said nothing about the issue of the name Lindows nor about Windows vs Linux on security. Your response does nothing to defend your original absurd over-reaction. You quote my remark that anyone should expect Microsoft's competitors to draw attention to security issues and respond by going off at a complete tangent about the name issue. I must say that I agree with you on the name issue. It is easy to get confused. Just today, I listened to a sand and then went for a walk along the band. Then I took a coat trip and it was so windy that I put on my boat. When I got home, I retired to my pen and wrote some notes with my blue den. I then opened up the floor and swept the door. It is hard to dope when you are a cope. That is why I think Microsoft should be prevented from using the name Windows. People will confuse it with XWindows.:) John Carson
John Carson wrote: Thus, by your own testimony, you lost sympathy some time AFTER you knew of the name Lindows I knew of the name Lindows months ago, it was this recent F.U.D. which caused me to rethink my stance. Trademark law and possible violations are best left to those earning eighty pounds an hour debating them. John Carson wrote: These were "dirty techniques ... That is why I have lost all respect for them. I can see I have spent the past few days talking to myself here. dum de dum de dum de dum de, etc, etc. We are not talking about either companies business practises, we are not talking about security issues with either product, we are talking about the deliberate fudification of a press release that was released in line with the suit filed by Microsoft. It's a simple case of the small guy trying to (and succeeding in) leeching of the big guy in very poor taste. My "elastoglas/s" analogy was actually very relavent. John Carson wrote: My post responded to this absurd over-reaction to a perfectly normal dig from a firm at a competitor Under normal circumstances then sure, it would be straight forward FUD the same as every over company on earth produces at some time or another. The point is that this was not released under normal circumstances. John Carson wrote: I must say that I agree with you on the name issue. It is easy to get confused. It is, but that is really irrelavent with respect to this thread. ________________ David Wulff http://www.davidwulff.co.uk "DON'T MOVE! It can't see you if you don't move" - Sam Neil talking to me as John Simmons walked into the office.
-
>That is not what I said, nor what I have implied. Yes you did: You:What I was getting at was the e-mail "overhyping" (is that a word?) Microsoft products' security flaws in general. Me: I didn't regard the Plug and Play vulnerability as overhyped, neither did the FBI. You: Ah, the FBI, that means it must be important. *choke* Me:It adds to it. It means there is more than a bunch of Linux zealots annotating it as a security risk. You:I have yet to hear from or meet a single person or corporation affected by this so called critical security risk. Me:Of course by your comments, I safe in aassuming you think it wasn't there? It's not a pontential hole because David Wulff said so. You:That is not what I said, nor what I have implied. You: Since when have we been talking about Windows' security issues? >Again I will repeat: we are not discussing this topic at all. Actually we are, I talked about it and you responded. Thats a conversation no matter how many innane and useless protests you make about it not being a conversation. >We are talking about this specific case here, not the business practises of either company in general. Actually, you're trying to confine any digressions to whatever topic you choose. I'm trying to make the point that you were quick to condemn the Lindows folks for their "backhanded dirty marketting practices, with F.U.D. stamped all over it.", but you haven't doled out the same sentence to Microsoft for similiar tactics. Making that point required me to bring in other issues. >Presumably you would extend this to cover Office too? Yes, they couldn't trademark Office, just Microsoft Office. It was a difficult battle for Microsoft to trademark Windows. A short one line opinion can't possible cover every situation you could imagaine, but I think surnames like Janes are generally ok. C++ would not be a good trademark, but Microsoft C++ or Visual C++ would. Even Windows XP, Windows NT, and Microsoft Windows are ok. >If all trademarked "words" had to be unique non-common words (under all known languages), we would run out words fast. It's difficult to trademark a single word, irrespective of the class. I recently hired a firm to do a search on a product name (for an embedded device) containing the word 'Wizard', and in their report, they advised against it because of the word 'Wizard'. It is because of the limited nature of words and names that we have trademarks (excluding images, logos, or any other product art). >Nothing useful, except from providing proof to
f1shlips wrote: If you say so. You're fairly new here, so I'll let you off. I have more free time than Nish. This time however I have a lot of work to do for tomorrow, so I haven't got time to re-read all of your repeated arguments again. It get's depressing restating the same old same old again and again. I'll just accept them at face value for what they are and move on. ________________ David Wulff http://www.davidwulff.co.uk "DON'T MOVE! It can't see you if you don't move" - Sam Neil talking to me as John Simmons walked into the office.
-
f1shlips wrote: If you say so. You're fairly new here, so I'll let you off. I have more free time than Nish. This time however I have a lot of work to do for tomorrow, so I haven't got time to re-read all of your repeated arguments again. It get's depressing restating the same old same old again and again. I'll just accept them at face value for what they are and move on. ________________ David Wulff http://www.davidwulff.co.uk "DON'T MOVE! It can't see you if you don't move" - Sam Neil talking to me as John Simmons walked into the office.
>You're fairly new here, so I'll let you off. That's funny. One day, after I had reloaded my computer at work, I tried to log into CodeProject. Unfortunatly the 'Lost Password' functionality was broken and so I sent Chris an email about it, but I decided to create a new account in the interim. I forgot I had left myself logged in to that account. I guess I didn't think there would be anyone moronic enough to try and use that against me. I was wrong. f1shlips@earthlink.net http://www.codeproject.com/script/profile/whos\_who.asp?id=26887 f1shlips@inreach.com http://www.codeproject.com/script/profile/whos\_who.asp?id=1495
-
>You're fairly new here, so I'll let you off. That's funny. One day, after I had reloaded my computer at work, I tried to log into CodeProject. Unfortunatly the 'Lost Password' functionality was broken and so I sent Chris an email about it, but I decided to create a new account in the interim. I forgot I had left myself logged in to that account. I guess I didn't think there would be anyone moronic enough to try and use that against me. I was wrong. f1shlips@earthlink.net http://www.codeproject.com/script/profile/whos\_who.asp?id=26887 f1shlips@inreach.com http://www.codeproject.com/script/profile/whos\_who.asp?id=1495
And given the fact that I don't have access to the database/s to perform all possible queries on "f1shlips", I have to use the information availalbe to me. Even so, at the risk of starting another waste of speace sub-thread, in what way did I use this against you? ________________ David Wulff http://www.davidwulff.co.uk "DON'T MOVE! It can't see you if you don't move" - Sam Neil talking to me as John Simmons walked into the office.
-
And given the fact that I don't have access to the database/s to perform all possible queries on "f1shlips", I have to use the information availalbe to me. Even so, at the risk of starting another waste of speace sub-thread, in what way did I use this against you? ________________ David Wulff http://www.davidwulff.co.uk "DON'T MOVE! It can't see you if you don't move" - Sam Neil talking to me as John Simmons walked into the office.
Although, I'm sure you had a fairly good idea of what I was saying, but "Use against me" isn't the best way to describe it, but you stopped the argument for whatever reason and used my being "fairly new here" as an excuse. Go back to reading your supportive emails.
-
Although, I'm sure you had a fairly good idea of what I was saying, but "Use against me" isn't the best way to describe it, but you stopped the argument for whatever reason and used my being "fairly new here" as an excuse. Go back to reading your supportive emails.
Actually I ended it fot two reasons. 1) I am extremely busy at the moment, and 2), we are getting nowhere. "you being new" was in response to you implying I was wasting my time, as any pre-summer CPian would know I have enough time to waste. BBNO anyone? ;) ________________ David Wulff http://www.davidwulff.co.uk "DON'T MOVE! It can't see you if you don't move" - Sam Neil talking to me as John Simmons walked into the office.
-
John Carson wrote: Thus, by your own testimony, you lost sympathy some time AFTER you knew of the name Lindows I knew of the name Lindows months ago, it was this recent F.U.D. which caused me to rethink my stance. Trademark law and possible violations are best left to those earning eighty pounds an hour debating them. John Carson wrote: These were "dirty techniques ... That is why I have lost all respect for them. I can see I have spent the past few days talking to myself here. dum de dum de dum de dum de, etc, etc. We are not talking about either companies business practises, we are not talking about security issues with either product, we are talking about the deliberate fudification of a press release that was released in line with the suit filed by Microsoft. It's a simple case of the small guy trying to (and succeeding in) leeching of the big guy in very poor taste. My "elastoglas/s" analogy was actually very relavent. John Carson wrote: My post responded to this absurd over-reaction to a perfectly normal dig from a firm at a competitor Under normal circumstances then sure, it would be straight forward FUD the same as every over company on earth produces at some time or another. The point is that this was not released under normal circumstances. John Carson wrote: I must say that I agree with you on the name issue. It is easy to get confused. It is, but that is really irrelavent with respect to this thread. ________________ David Wulff http://www.davidwulff.co.uk "DON'T MOVE! It can't see you if you don't move" - Sam Neil talking to me as John Simmons walked into the office.
At least we have now returned to the issue of the screenshot. Some meagre progress. David Wulff: I can see I have spent the past few days talking to myself here. If you are referring to such stunning insights as the fact that the email displayed was not randomly chosen, then they have been duly noted and dismissed with: "Of course." David Wulff: We are not talking about either companies business practises "dirty techniques", "fudification". If not business practices, then what? David Wulff: we are talking about the deliberate fudification of a press release that was released in line with the suit filed by Microsoft Windows security issues and the (mis)use of the name "Lindows" are two separate issues, a point that you seem to have a great deal of difficulty in grasping. The point is that security problems with Windows get a lot of publicity, no doubt partly because Windows is so widely used and no doubt partly because a lot of people dislike Microsoft. The Lindows organisation is the source of approximately zero percent of that bad publicity. Given the widespread perception, on account of the publicity, that Windows has significant security problems, of course Lindows is going to draw people's attention to it in its advertising as part of normal competitive behaviour. David Wulff: My "elastoglas/s" analogy was actually very relavent. I have already said that I agree with you on the name issue. Incidentally, I forgot to mention that the band that I was listening to called themselves the Meatles. Partway through the performance (I don't remember if it was while I was chewing my coffee or drinking my toffee), the person sitting next to me told me that Paul McCartney considers that there may be some risk of confusion between the Meatles and a band that he was associated with, and that he is considering suing. I must say that I was shocked; I thought that the Meatles was the band that Paul McCartney was associated with. David Wulff: Under normal circumstances then sure, it would be straight forward FUD the same as every over company on earth produces at some time or another. The point is that this was not released under normal circumstances. So the critical point then is that Microsoft is suing Lindows, so this means Lindows should stop trying to win customers by highlighting security concerns with Windows? Your mind really does work in bizarre ways. I am sure Microsoft would love Lin
-
So far you, John, and the formula one guy have all gone off on the wrong tangent. I did say very cleary to take into consideration the underlined text and understand why I underlined it. If you can't even grasp that, why are you contributing to the conversation? Would you go into a hospital and start giving out drugs if you didn't understand what they did? I hope not. The only people who have expressed an understanding of my point have had to do so privately via my inbox just to keep out of these pointless offtopic sub-threads. :( ________________ David Wulff http://www.davidwulff.co.uk "DON'T MOVE! It can't see you if you don't move" - Sam Neil talking to me as John Simmons walked into the office.
Riiiight. So now you've moved it from "me hates Linux, me want to find reason hates Linux more" to accusing people of being idiots and then retreating into the famous Private Email. Nice job! I'll have to remember that next time around! But right now I have to go read some email telling me how bloody wonderful I am.
Si hoc Legere Scis Nimium Eruditionis Habes
-
Riiiight. So now you've moved it from "me hates Linux, me want to find reason hates Linux more" to accusing people of being idiots and then retreating into the famous Private Email. Nice job! I'll have to remember that next time around! But right now I have to go read some email telling me how bloody wonderful I am.
Si hoc Legere Scis Nimium Eruditionis Habes
This barely begs a reply. Are you calling me a liar? :( If you are, then say so out right and to my face, don't do it through twisted statements that aren't even taken from my own arguments. It's no big secret why people do not feel confident to publically express their views on contriversial topics when you get replies like yours. It's not the first time, and I doubt it will be the last. :( ________________ David Wulff http://www.davidwulff.co.uk
-
This barely begs a reply. Are you calling me a liar? :( If you are, then say so out right and to my face, don't do it through twisted statements that aren't even taken from my own arguments. It's no big secret why people do not feel confident to publically express their views on contriversial topics when you get replies like yours. It's not the first time, and I doubt it will be the last. :( ________________ David Wulff http://www.davidwulff.co.uk
Sorry, I'm far too busy right now reading my Private Email that does not bring bias into the discussion and does not attempt to force views upon others. Please attempt to blame yourself instead of those who disagree with you. Thank you and have a great day!
Visual Studio Favorites - www.nopcode.com/visualfav
-
Sorry, I'm far too busy right now reading my Private Email that does not bring bias into the discussion and does not attempt to force views upon others. Please attempt to blame yourself instead of those who disagree with you. Thank you and have a great day!
Visual Studio Favorites - www.nopcode.com/visualfav
Todd C. Wilson wrote: Thank you and have a great day! Ah ha, you are welcome. I now know to have the infamous salt shaker nearby when I see anything from Mr. Wilson. Don't beat about the bush with your superficial witty comments, state your views outright and take the repercussions like a man. Even I am able to do that, being a thieving, plagiarising liar. :| ________________ David Wulff http://www.davidwulff.co.uk "DON'T MOVE! It can't see you if you don't move" - Sam Neil talking to me as John Simmons walked into the office.