LinuxInsider Editor Didn't Even Use Linux.......

On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 18:58:06 -0700, Snit wrote:

> "Moshe Goldfarb." <brick_n_straw@gmail.com> stated in post
> k1rsy0hec9gb.1jk56j4vh8ny7$.dlg@40tude.net on 8/28/08 6:11 PM:
>
>> On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 14:22:20 -0700, Tim Smith wrote:
>>
>>> In article <1e44nmlyuiti9$.14wq5kto3th3q$.dlg@40tude.net>,
>>> "Moshe Goldfarb." <brick_n_straw@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> .....until now.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.linuxinsider.com/rsstory/64306.html
>>>>
>>>> It took him over a year working as an editor for LinuxInsider to make the
>>>> move to Linux?
>>>>
>>>> How on earth did this guy even get the job?
>>>
>>> Don't worry. I'm sure someone will soon find some connection between the
>>> publisher of LinuxInsider and Microsoft (or perhaps Apple--they publish
>>> AppleInsider, too), and so will demonstrate that this was just a paid
>>> hit piece by the enemies of Linux. That's how it always happens.
>>>
>>> (Queue chrisv asking for proof that this always happens...)
>>
>> They are scrambling around in damage control mode already.
>> Much like roaches do when a Linux advocate turns on the lights in his
>> mother's basement.
>
> The general "damage control" used in COLA is to lash out against those who
> know more than you (even if only in a limited area). That is one of the
> main reasons Peter Köhlman spews BS about my personal and professional life
> and lies about me forging PDFs - it is why Tattoo Vampire lies about me
> calling him and makes up stories about my family and calls me a "hippie" who
> should find a "real job" [another moron who says teachers do not have real
> jobs]. It is why *both* of them call people names and mock others.
>
> They are insecure about themselves. They do not like themselves as they are
> and do not think they can become better. They mock people who acknowledge
> errors and look for any hole in someone armor where they think they can get
> a good "dig".
>
> Steve Carroll of, mostly, CSMA was the same way... and he finally had -
> literally - a mental break down. I do not wish the same for Peter and
> Tattoo... I sincerely hope they find it in themselves to improve themselves.

I haven't been following your battles however this is basically true.
An example is the FAA thread.
I happen to know a very well placed person, and have for many years and as
a result I know a lot about how that operation works.
And my information, within the limits of the systems I am familiar with via
this connection, is right on the money.

This is compared to "press releases" and pure speculation on the part of
the Linux loons in this group.
I tell it like it is and I don't really give a hoot what the problem was
other than to discuss it and possibly offer better solutions.

Another example is the "it works for me" aka CUPS thread where I point
out that the Linux loons were squawking about this long before Eric Raymond
wrote that scathing article.

They have done it for years and it's simply a lie which came out later when
normal people tried doing these various tasks and failed.

Kohlmann of course chimes in with his proof mantra.
I offered proof.
But then he starts up his little game about the proof not being good
enough.
Sorry, I don't get sucked into his vortex anymore.

Then of course Linonut has to point out that I posted the same thread link
twice as if this means anything.
It's proof and there is plenty more.

Google is FULL of Linux nuts claiming the fonts in Linux for example or
printers just *work* for them and this is way back years ago and in some
cases before they even had antialiasing on fonts and they truly looked
jagged and horrible.

For them to lie and try and discredit me with their usual "proof" crap is
ludicrous because Linonut and Kohlmann were here when all that stuff was
going on and they know full well what was said.


Several of these people here obviously have some kind of mental problem
when it comes to being honest about Linux.
I fail to understand this but I suspect it arises from being insecure,
being locked into jobs where they are using Windows 10 hours a day to earn
their living and it having some kind of effect on their psyche.

Look at Schestowitz for example.
Is his behavior even remotely normal for a college age young adult who
should be building his life?

The list goes on an on.

You can bet your sweet bippy that if it had been the editor of Microsoft
World that used Linux they would be squealing with delight.
In fact they squeal over the fact that Microsoft has a Linux lab or that
Microsoft's 3rd party caching servers run Linux.

In short the majority of comp.os.linux.advocacy's *advocates* are not
advocates at all.
They are doing far more harm to Linux than they are helping the cause.

Someone on digg put it nicely:

"Roy Schestowitz is to Linux what Pat Robertson is to religion. He scares
away more people than he converts".

This is true of many of the COLA Linux loons.



--
Moshe Goldfarb
Collector of soaps from around the globe.
Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/

"Moshe Goldfarb." <brick_n_straw@gmail.com> stated in post
1owp400zx77s8$.1bhedue5q63qo.dlg@40tude.net on 8/28/08 7:26 PM:

> On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 18:58:06 -0700, Snit wrote:
>
>> "Moshe Goldfarb." <brick_n_straw@gmail.com> stated in post
>> k1rsy0hec9gb.1jk56j4vh8ny7$.dlg@40tude.net on 8/28/08 6:11 PM:
>>
>>> On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 14:22:20 -0700, Tim Smith wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article <1e44nmlyuiti9$.14wq5kto3th3q$.dlg@40tude.net>,
>>>> "Moshe Goldfarb." <brick_n_straw@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> .....until now.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.linuxinsider.com/rsstory/64306.html
>>>>>
>>>>> It took him over a year working as an editor for LinuxInsider to make the
>>>>> move to Linux?
>>>>>
>>>>> How on earth did this guy even get the job?
>>>>
>>>> Don't worry. I'm sure someone will soon find some connection between the
>>>> publisher of LinuxInsider and Microsoft (or perhaps Apple--they publish
>>>> AppleInsider, too), and so will demonstrate that this was just a paid
>>>> hit piece by the enemies of Linux. That's how it always happens.
>>>>
>>>> (Queue chrisv asking for proof that this always happens...)
>>>
>>> They are scrambling around in damage control mode already.
>>> Much like roaches do when a Linux advocate turns on the lights in his
>>> mother's basement.
>>
>> The general "damage control" used in COLA is to lash out against those who
>> know more than you (even if only in a limited area). That is one of the
>> main reasons Peter Köhlman spews BS about my personal and professional life
>> and lies about me forging PDFs - it is why Tattoo Vampire lies about me
>> calling him and makes up stories about my family and calls me a "hippie" who
>> should find a "real job" [another moron who says teachers do not have real
>> jobs]. It is why *both* of them call people names and mock others.
>>
>> They are insecure about themselves. They do not like themselves as they are
>> and do not think they can become better. They mock people who acknowledge
>> errors and look for any hole in someone armor where they think they can get
>> a good "dig".
>>
>> Steve Carroll of, mostly, CSMA was the same way... and he finally had -
>> literally - a mental break down. I do not wish the same for Peter and
>> Tattoo... I sincerely hope they find it in themselves to improve themselves.
>
> I haven't been following your battles however this is basically true.
> An example is the FAA thread.
> I happen to know a very well placed person, and have for many years and as
> a result I know a lot about how that operation works.
> And my information, within the limits of the systems I am familiar with via
> this connection, is right on the money.
>
> This is compared to "press releases" and pure speculation on the part of
> the Linux loons in this group.
> I tell it like it is and I don't really give a hoot what the problem was
> other than to discuss it and possibly offer better solutions.
>
> Another example is the "it works for me" aka CUPS thread where I point
> out that the Linux loons were squawking about this long before Eric Raymond
> wrote that scathing article.
>
> They have done it for years and it's simply a lie which came out later when
> normal people tried doing these various tasks and failed.

Curious what the CUPS problems are. It is now owned and maintained by a
very professional group (Apple) so I would expect it to become at least
reasonably good - and excellent at meeting Apple's specific needs.

> Kohlmann of course chimes in with his proof mantra.

Köhlmann is the last person on the planet who has any moral authority to
demand "proof". When was his last post where he referenced me that he did
not accuse me of having a sock puppet? How many times in the last month has
he spewed BS about my family - information he *clearly* knows nothing about?
How often has he completely dodged any effort to get him to back up the BS
his self-loathing inspires him to post?

> I offered proof.
> But then he starts up his little game about the proof not being good
> enough.
> Sorry, I don't get sucked into his vortex anymore.
>
> Then of course Linonut has to point out that I posted the same thread link
> twice as if this means anything.
> It's proof and there is plenty more.

Ah, Peter keep accusing me of forging a PDF... so I re-post the proof that
*every* piece of data I claim is verifiable... and then he whines that I am
reposting the same disproof to his idiotic and unsupported accusation.

I used to work at summer camps - I had a 7 year old in my cabin one year who
complained that "so-and-so is hitting me back". Well, that is what Peter is
doing... whining that I am "hitting" him back by proving his accusation is a
lie.

> Google is FULL of Linux nuts claiming the fonts in Linux for example or
> printers just *work* for them and this is way back years ago and in some
> cases before they even had antialiasing on fonts and they truly looked
> jagged and horrible.

I remember some of those debates.

> For them to lie and try and discredit me with their usual "proof" crap is
> ludicrous because Linonut and Kohlmann were here when all that stuff was
> going on and they know full well what was said.

They will not be honest about it.

> Several of these people here obviously have some kind of mental problem
> when it comes to being honest about Linux.
> I fail to understand this but I suspect it arises from being insecure,
> being locked into jobs where they are using Windows 10 hours a day to earn
> their living and it having some kind of effect on their psyche.
>
> Look at Schestowitz for example.
> Is his behavior even remotely normal for a college age young adult who
> should be building his life?
>
> The list goes on an on.
>
> You can bet your sweet bippy that if it had been the editor of Microsoft
> World that used Linux they would be squealing with delight.
> In fact they squeal over the fact that Microsoft has a Linux lab or that
> Microsoft's 3rd party caching servers run Linux.
>
> In short the majority of comp.os.linux.advocacy's *advocates* are not
> advocates at all.

Agreed.

> They are doing far more harm to Linux than they are helping the cause.
>
> Someone on digg put it nicely:
>
> "Roy Schestowitz is to Linux what Pat Robertson is to religion. He scares
> away more people than he converts".
>
> This is true of many of the COLA Linux loons.

Robertsom is sane compared to many in COLA.



--
Satan lives for my sins... now *that* is dedication!

On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 20:17:01 -0700, Snit wrote:


> Curious what the CUPS problems are. It is now owned and maintained by a
> very professional group (Apple) so I would expect it to become at least
> reasonably good - and excellent at meeting Apple's specific needs.


Which is why it works reasonably well these days, assuming a qualit driver
is available for your printer model.

I'm talking about years ago when it was very difficult to configure, like
Eric Raymond reported when HE had problems with it.

At that time, and well before that letter, the loons in COLA claimed it was
easy, they just plugged in their printer, etc.

You know the usual stuff.

>> Kohlmann of course chimes in with his proof mantra.
>
> Köhlmann is the last person on the planet who has any moral authority to
> demand "proof". When was his last post where he referenced me that he did
> not accuse me of having a sock puppet? How many times in the last month has
> he spewed BS about my family - information he *clearly* knows nothing about?
> How often has he completely dodged any effort to get him to back up the BS
> his self-loathing inspires him to post?

Peter is a very bitter person.



> Ah, Peter keep accusing me of forging a PDF... so I re-post the proof that
> *every* piece of data I claim is verifiable... and then he whines that I am
> reposting the same disproof to his idiotic and unsupported accusation.
>
> I used to work at summer camps - I had a 7 year old in my cabin one year who
> complained that "so-and-so is hitting me back". Well, that is what Peter is
> doing... whining that I am "hitting" him back by proving his accusation is a
> lie.

I haven't been following all this but Peter loves to make accusations but
when asked for proof he will never provide you with any.
He usually runs away.

>> Google is FULL of Linux nuts claiming the fonts in Linux for example or
>> printers just *work* for them and this is way back years ago and in some
>> cases before they even had antialiasing on fonts and they truly looked
>> jagged and horrible.
>
> I remember some of those debates.

So do the Linux advocates but being the liars that they are, they will
deny, discredit and attack rather than admit the truth.

>> For them to lie and try and discredit me with their usual "proof" crap is
>> ludicrous because Linonut and Kohlmann were here when all that stuff was
>> going on and they know full well what was said.
>
> They will not be honest about it.

Of course not.


>> Several of these people here obviously have some kind of mental problem
>> when it comes to being honest about Linux.
>> I fail to understand this but I suspect it arises from being insecure,
>> being locked into jobs where they are using Windows 10 hours a day to earn
>> their living and it having some kind of effect on their psyche.
>>
>> Look at Schestowitz for example.
>> Is his behavior even remotely normal for a college age young adult who
>> should be building his life?
>>
>> The list goes on an on.
>>
>> You can bet your sweet bippy that if it had been the editor of Microsoft
>> World that used Linux they would be squealing with delight.
>> In fact they squeal over the fact that Microsoft has a Linux lab or that
>> Microsoft's 3rd party caching servers run Linux.
>>
>> In short the majority of comp.os.linux.advocacy's *advocates* are not
>> advocates at all.
>
> Agreed.
>
>> They are doing far more harm to Linux than they are helping the cause.
>>
>> Someone on digg put it nicely:
>>
>> "Roy Schestowitz is to Linux what Pat Robertson is to religion. He scares
>> away more people than he converts".
>>
>> This is true of many of the COLA Linux loons.
>
> Robertsom is sane compared to many in COLA.

Yes he is....


--
Moshe Goldfarb
Collector of soaps from around the globe.
Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/

"Moshe Goldfarb." <brick_n_straw@gmail.com> stated in post
s2jf1s9qs8t7$.3nc0eqc5f7v1$.dlg@40tude.net on 8/28/08 8:47 PM:

> On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 20:17:01 -0700, Snit wrote:
>
>
>> Curious what the CUPS problems are. It is now owned and maintained by a
>> very professional group (Apple) so I would expect it to become at least
>> reasonably good - and excellent at meeting Apple's specific needs.
>
>
> Which is why it works reasonably well these days, assuming a qualit driver
> is available for your printer model.
>
> I'm talking about years ago when it was very difficult to configure, like
> Eric Raymond reported when HE had problems with it.
>
> At that time, and well before that letter, the loons in COLA claimed it was
> easy, they just plugged in their printer, etc.
>
> You know the usual stuff.

OK... that makes more sense. I thought you meant serious issues with CUPS
as it is... and I had not heard of any.

>>> Kohlmann of course chimes in with his proof mantra.
>>
>> Köhlmann is the last person on the planet who has any moral authority to
>> demand "proof". When was his last post where he referenced me that he did
>> not accuse me of having a sock puppet? How many times in the last month has
>> he spewed BS about my family - information he *clearly* knows nothing about?
>> How often has he completely dodged any effort to get him to back up the BS
>> his self-loathing inspires him to post?
>
> Peter is a very bitter person.

No doubt. None at all.

>> Ah, Peter keep accusing me of forging a PDF... so I re-post the proof that
>> *every* piece of data I claim is verifiable... and then he whines that I am
>> reposting the same disproof to his idiotic and unsupported accusation.
>>
>> I used to work at summer camps - I had a 7 year old in my cabin one year who
>> complained that "so-and-so is hitting me back". Well, that is what Peter is
>> doing... whining that I am "hitting" him back by proving his accusation is a
>> lie.
>
> I haven't been following all this but Peter loves to make accusations but
> when asked for proof he will never provide you with any.
> He usually runs away.

He is not running away now... he whines about the proof he is a liar and
then re-posts his *same* lie. Then whines that the proof he is a liar is
being posted again.

He may very well be mentally ill. Really.

>>> Google is FULL of Linux nuts claiming the fonts in Linux for example or
>>> printers just *work* for them and this is way back years ago and in some
>>> cases before they even had antialiasing on fonts and they truly looked
>>> jagged and horrible.
>>
>> I remember some of those debates.
>
> So do the Linux advocates but being the liars that they are, they will
> deny, discredit and attack rather than admit the truth.

No doubt. None at all.

....

--
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.
--Aldous Huxley

* Damian peremptorily fired off this memo:

> chrisv wrote:
>> Damian wrote:
>>
>>> Only Two possibilities:
>>>
>>> 1. Illicit copy of XP.
>>> 2. You don't know how to install Windows correctly.
>>
>> There's still time to repent, "Damian".
>
> Oh, please Lord, forgive me for recognizing ignorance when I see it and
> pointing it out. Amen.

But you pointed out half of the possibilities.

--
There are certain things men must do to remain men.
-- Kirk, "The Ultimate Computer", stardate 4929.4

On 2008-08-29, Damian <nospam@rabid-dog.net> wrote:
> Lionel B wrote:
>> On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 14:59:59 -0400, Moshe Goldfarb. wrote:
>>
>>> .....until now.
>>>
>>> http://www.linuxinsider.com/rsstory/64306.html
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>> You have to read the article to see what a nightmare this guy went
>>> through getting Linux installed.
>>
>> LOL! Reminds me of a couple of years back, I had to reinstall XP on a
>> Dell Inspiron, as the OS went titsup due to some DLLHell(tm) issues.
>> Now *that* was a freaking nightmare (new hardware detected - how nice
>> - drivers not found, please insert CD, drivers still not found, please
>> reboot, please reboot again - and again... just one more time, thanks,
>> really... ahhhh... new hardware detected. Bollocks).
>
>
> Only Two possibilities:
>
> 1. Illicit copy of XP.
> 2. You don't know how to install Windows correctly.
>
> Which?

Why should either one be a problem?

Software shouldn't break just because it isn't properly licensed.
Beyond the purely technical problems this poses, there's also the
administrative overhead involved.

Either way, the software is broken in some way.

Windows is supposed to be "the easy OS" "suitable for joe sixpack".

The question of whether or not some random end user is "leet" enough
to install it all by himself shouldn't even come up.

--

It is not true that Microsoft doesn't innovate.

They brought us the email virus.

In my Atari days, such a notion would have |||
been considered a complete absurdity. / | \

Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

Linonut wrote:
> * Damian peremptorily fired off this memo:
>
>> chrisv wrote:
>>> Damian wrote:
>>>
>>>> Only Two possibilities:
>>>>
>>>> 1. Illicit copy of XP.
>>>> 2. You don't know how to install Windows correctly.
>>>
>>> There's still time to repent, "Damian".
>>
>> Oh, please Lord, forgive me for recognizing ignorance when I see it
>> and pointing it out. Amen.
>
> But you pointed out half of the possibilities.

Shhhh.
<I know, I was trying to appease chrisv.>

JEDIDIAH wrote:
> On 2008-08-29, Damian <nospam@rabid-dog.net> wrote:
>> Lionel B wrote:
>>> On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 14:59:59 -0400, Moshe Goldfarb. wrote:
>>>
>>>> .....until now.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.linuxinsider.com/rsstory/64306.html
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>>> You have to read the article to see what a nightmare this guy went
>>>> through getting Linux installed.
>>>
>>> LOL! Reminds me of a couple of years back, I had to reinstall XP on
>>> a Dell Inspiron, as the OS went titsup due to some DLLHell(tm)
>>> issues. Now *that* was a freaking nightmare (new hardware detected
>>> - how nice - drivers not found, please insert CD, drivers still not
>>> found, please reboot, please reboot again - and again... just one
>>> more time, thanks, really... ahhhh... new hardware detected.
>>> Bollocks).
>>
>>
>> Only Two possibilities:
>>
>> 1. Illicit copy of XP.
>> 2. You don't know how to install Windows correctly.
>>
>> Which?
>
> Why should either one be a problem?

Oh dear God. You're serious, aren't you? Do you use linux or something?


>
> Software shouldn't break just because it isn't properly licensed.
> Beyond the purely technical problems this poses, there's also the
> administrative overhead involved.
>
> Either way, the software is broken in some way.
>
> Windows is supposed to be "the easy OS" "suitable for joe sixpack".
>
> The question of whether or not some random end user is "leet"
> enough to install it all by himself shouldn't even come up.

On 2008-08-29, Damian <nospam@rabid-dog.net> wrote:
> JEDIDIAH wrote:
>> On 2008-08-29, Damian <nospam@rabid-dog.net> wrote:
>>> Lionel B wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 14:59:59 -0400, Moshe Goldfarb. wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> .....until now.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.linuxinsider.com/rsstory/64306.html
>>>>
>>>> [...]
>>>>
>>>>> You have to read the article to see what a nightmare this guy went
>>>>> through getting Linux installed.
>>>>
>>>> LOL! Reminds me of a couple of years back, I had to reinstall XP on
>>>> a Dell Inspiron, as the OS went titsup due to some DLLHell(tm)
>>>> issues. Now *that* was a freaking nightmare (new hardware detected
>>>> - how nice - drivers not found, please insert CD, drivers still not
>>>> found, please reboot, please reboot again - and again... just one
>>>> more time, thanks, really... ahhhh... new hardware detected.
>>>> Bollocks).
>>>
>>>
>>> Only Two possibilities:
>>>
>>> 1. Illicit copy of XP.
>>> 2. You don't know how to install Windows correctly.
>>>
>>> Which?
>>
>> Why should either one be a problem?
>
> Oh dear God. You're serious, aren't you? Do you use linux or something?

Of course I am serious.

"Blaming the end user" is simply not an acceptable way to treat
problems relating to an operating system specifically targeted at the
clueless.

A cabal of hobbyists should not be able to do better than one of
the most overcapitalized corporations on the planet.

>
>
>>
>> Software shouldn't break just because it isn't properly licensed.
>> Beyond the purely technical problems this poses, there's also the
>> administrative overhead involved.
>>
>> Either way, the software is broken in some way.
>>
>> Windows is supposed to be "the easy OS" "suitable for joe sixpack".
>>
>> The question of whether or not some random end user is "leet"
>> enough to install it all by himself shouldn't even come up.
>
>


--

Nothing today, likely nothing since we tamed fire,
is genuinely new: culture, like science and |||
technology grows by accretion, each new creator / | \
building on the works of those that came before.

Judge Alex Kozinski
US Court of Appeals
9th Circuit


Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

JEDIDIAH wrote:
> On 2008-08-29, Damian <nospam@rabid-dog.net> wrote:
>> JEDIDIAH wrote:
>>> On 2008-08-29, Damian <nospam@rabid-dog.net> wrote:
>>>> Lionel B wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 14:59:59 -0400, Moshe Goldfarb. wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> .....until now.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.linuxinsider.com/rsstory/64306.html
>>>>>
>>>>> [...]
>>>>>
>>>>>> You have to read the article to see what a nightmare this guy
>>>>>> went through getting Linux installed.
>>>>>
>>>>> LOL! Reminds me of a couple of years back, I had to reinstall XP
>>>>> on a Dell Inspiron, as the OS went titsup due to some DLLHell(tm)
>>>>> issues. Now *that* was a freaking nightmare (new hardware detected
>>>>> - how nice - drivers not found, please insert CD, drivers still
>>>>> not found, please reboot, please reboot again - and again... just
>>>>> one more time, thanks, really... ahhhh... new hardware detected.
>>>>> Bollocks).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Only Two possibilities:
>>>>
>>>> 1. Illicit copy of XP.
>>>> 2. You don't know how to install Windows correctly.
>>>>
>>>> Which?
>>>
>>> Why should either one be a problem?
>>
>> Oh dear God. You're serious, aren't you? Do you use linux or
>> something?
>
> Of course I am serious.
>
> "Blaming the end user" is simply not an acceptable way to treat
> problems relating to an operating system specifically targeted at the
> clueless.

When *MILLIONS* of users have successfully installed, and are running
Windows XP _successfully_ it is very acceptable to blame the luser who is
unable to get it to work. It proves the axiom, 'linux makes you stupid'.