LindowsOS moves to a new low
-
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.