Because Shiny Things Are Fun - The New New Windows v Linux Thread

Originally Posted by L4Z3R linux is what's trending TODAY in this modern computer age of mobile, SBC's ( Small board Computers) and the cloud.

In some areas of the world easily beaten by BSD (Apple), on the desktop being entirely irrelevant.

Originally Posted by jsbjsb001 But that's the problem with what you're saying (in bold), I did NOT say that! So I don't understand why your saying that I did... So believe me, you're far from the only one who is confused here.

Here is where you say exactly what I quoted (in bold) and the quote has a link to the post:

Originally Posted by jsbjsb001 Yes and no, it's an important indicator but no, it's not a technical agrument per say, as in: M$ doesn't have most of the desktop market because of market share, but instead because yes, they were very clever with making agreements early on, when the PC industry was still evolving. They also have complete control over their OS and therefore don't have the same issues as Linux, as well as the BSD's on the desktop front.

Originally Posted by jsbjsb001 No I have not "transitioned" from anything. So, this is my last ditch attempt to explain it; and as I have said, in was in response to insults directed at Linux users, as in: if you (YesItsMe) want to keep calling Linux users names, lets see how YOU like being called names. As in: while I could have done a better job in the way is was written, they where aimed at YesItsMe and no other Windows users. Yes, if you're saying that it didn't appear that way, then fine, maybe you have a point there. So, to be clear: my insults where directed at YesItsMe, not anyone else.

So you weren't insulting Windows users, you were insulting Windows users as a means of insulting YesItsMe?

Originally Posted by jsbjsb001 Well, actually we were discussing a number of security related issues. Secondly, you're putting across the idea that security either isn't important or doesn't matter at all as far as Linux kernel developers are concerned. That's just plain wrong. I'm also entitled to take a different view to you too.

What I've posted is there to be read - it doesn't match your misinterpretation. You've conflated kernel security (what was being discussed, what YesItsMe was referring to) and developers being interested, or not, in fixing bugs.

Originally Posted by jsbjsb001 Yes, developers who are working for/at the Linux Foundation, under agreement between Intel/AMD and the Linux Foundation.

This is your rationalisation, but not based on any fact.

Originally Posted by jsbjsb001 Are you sure "you made no such claim that Torvalds dismisses security flaws" cynwulf? It's not how I read it. I didn't mean to imply you did say that "Torvalds dismisses security flaws out of hand" by using the double quotes and for that I'm sorry - I'll try and use single quotes next time, to avoid the confusion.

You appear to read a lot into my posts which isn't there in the first place.

Originally Posted by jamison20000e I ... wouldn't say Linux is always secure but Windows is far less secure because my grandma runs it. You think she's going to do updates and install security if I don't for her?

It depends on your granny.

Suffice it to say I was not quite what my nieces new husband had in mind as her Uncle when we recently met for the first time. The Crazy Uncle, maybe. With my "FreeBSD Power To Serve" T-shirt, table talk with my nieces about how to deal with someone performing a DOS on one of their friends PS4 and what he must have considered controversial computer subjects conversed so casually among clan.

His parents are both hoity-toity lawyers and I can envision him telling them about meeting me... It didn't even occur to me at the time, but he appeared shocked, if not overwhelmed, developed a headache and had to go lay down for a while.

Originally Posted by cynwulf Here is where you say exactly what I quoted (in bold) and the quote has a link to the post:

Well cynwulf, I'm not going to sit here and debate something I've said that you have clearly misunderstood, that's not my problem that you've misunderstood the point I was trying to make, sorry.

So you weren't insulting Windows users, you were insulting Windows users as a means of insulting YesItsMe?

You can dress up what I said all you like, I've already explained why I said what I said. What more do you want ? Blood? Well, I'm sorry cynwulf, but some of your posts/blogs (not just in this thread) are not really too consistent with some of the things you preach here. Just for one example: you say things like "there are a lot more users around who "know everything" and as well as "With these users come the overly critical, self important, entitled types, those who believe they speak for the many", etc. Do you think that accusing someone of saying something that they DIDN'T, is conjunctive to these comments? I'm sorry cynwulf, but weather it's just me or not, I really get the feeling that you just don't like it when someone dares to disagree with you. I remember thinking the very same for a certain other thread we were involved with, where you also accused me of saying things I never did. Once again, if you want to be critical, then be fair and state ALL of the facts - not just the ones you like. You also still have not really admitted that I was NOT only one exchanging insults - you've basically glossed over that FACT.

What I've posted is there to be read - it doesn't match your misinterpretation. You've conflated kernel security (what was being discussed, what YesItsMe was referring to) and developers being interested, or not, in fixing bugs.

Once again cynwulf, a little bit of reading should tell you that "kernel security" was NOT the only thing being discussed. And in fact, YesItsMe was all over the place - which I had even stated before your latest reply's. So I can only suggest that you re-read the thread.

This is your rationalisation, but not based on any fact.

I think you'll find it is indeed fact. You can keep using as many 'buzz' words as you like, you know what I said and I doubt anymore needs to be for that matter.

You appear to read a lot into my posts which isn't there in the first place.

The real question to me is, are you just upset about the fact that people ain't conducting the discussion/debate/argument (whatever you wish to call it) the way YOU want ? As, AFAICS, it's either that or there's something else that's really bugging you. And yes, I have read a number of your posts and you once again, seem to have one set of standards for yourself and another for whoever dares to disagree. And the fact that your criticism about insults exchanged was so one-sided and you continue to accuse me of saying something I did NOT. That's not in keeping with someone who really is objective, honest and fair. I'm actually pretty disappointed in you more than anything, rather than angry, to be perfectly honest with you.

But, all that said, and given how one-sided this discussion of ours has become, then I don't think there's really any more point replying to you. Sorry.

Too easy. Much too easy.

Originally Posted by jsbjsb001 Well cynwulf, I'm not going to sit here and debate something I've said that you have clearly misunderstood, that's not my problem that you've misunderstood the point I was trying to make, sorry.

No, you stated categorically that it was not something you said:

Originally Posted by jsbjsb001 But that's the problem with what you're saying (in bold), I did NOT say that!

Now it has changed to something you did say, but which I've misunderstood? So which is it?

Originally Posted by jsbjsb001 You can dress up what I said all you like, I've already explained why I said what I said. What more do you want ? Blood? Well, I'm sorry cynwulf, but some of your posts/blogs (not just in this thread) are not really too consistent with some of the things you preach here. Just for one example: you say things like "there are a lot more users around who "know everything" and as well as "With these users come the overly critical, self important, entitled types, those who believe they speak for the many", etc.

Nothing I've said here is inconsistent with what I've posted in my blogs. If you'd actually read and understood them, you'd appreciate that already. You're using a tactic which I recognise and which you've executed quite poorly (which is why you won't see any response to the rest of your diatribe which uses this same tactic).

Originally Posted by jsbjsb001 Do you think that accusing someone of saying something that they DIDN'T, is conjunctive to these comments?

I have come across one person in this thread who invented their own quotes and attributed them to someone else. It wasn't me.

I have also come across one person who claims they didn't say something, even when presented with an actual quote of theirs - again this was not me.

If you still refuse to own your own quotes, then there is really no point in continuing this discourse.

Originally Posted by jsbjsb001 I'm sorry cynwulf, but weather it's just me or not, I really get the feeling that you just don't like it when someone dares to disagree with you.

No apology is needed, but the "mote and the beam" springs to mind. I'm posting in this thread because we're disagreeing, if we weren't disagreeing, then this would be just yet another Linux fanclub circle jerk and MS Windows hate fest. So using that logic, I can't really see how or why you've come to that conclusion.

Originally Posted by jsbjsb001 The real question to me is, are you just upset about the fact that people ain't conducting the discussion/debate/argument (whatever you wish to call it) the way YOU want ?

There is one person in this thread who is clearly getting very emotional and possibly even "upset", about this - it isn't me.

Originally Posted by jsbjsb001 Sorry.

Apology accepted.

Originally Posted by cynwulf No, you stated categorically that it was not something you said: Now it has changed to something you did say, but which I've misunderstood? So which is it?

I was talking about what I put in bold. Not what you put in bold. You put what I SAID in bold yes, and I when quoting you put some of what YOU said in bold. So I think you're getting that mixed up.

Nothing I've said here is inconsistent with what I've posted in my blogs. If you'd actually read and understood them, you'd appreciate that already. You're using a tactic which I recognise and which you've executed quite poorly (which is why you won't see any response to the rest of your diatribe which uses this same tactic).

See... I'm using a "tactic", so now you're accusing me of another thing again. I'm telling you what I think of you're responses, nothing more.

...If you still refuse to own your own quotes, then there is really no point in continuing this discourse.

I'm not "refusing" to "own" anything. I have "owned" what I've said - right, wrong or indifferent. But, I do agree with the last part of what you said... neither do I.

No apology is needed, but the "mote and the beam" springs to mind. I'm posting in this thread because we're disagreeing, if we weren't disagreeing, then this would be just yet another Linux fanclub circle jerk and MS Windows hate fest. So using that logic, I can't really see how or why you've come to that conclusion.

I'm not saying that you can't partake in the thread - which is up to yourself. I'm not surprised you don't "see how or why" I've come to the conclusion that I have. But we can leave it there, as once again, if you can't see anything wrong with any of your responses, well then, there's no point in even talking about. Agreed.

There is one person in this thread who is clearly getting very emotional and possibly even "upset", about this - it isn't me.

I wouldn't say that. But, I would say that I'm not going to continue in a thread where I'm once again being accused of saying things I have NOT or what I HAVE said being twisted to suit yourself. Let alone you being so one-sided when talking about insults being exchanged and still barely (if even) admitting that fact. So yes, that IS very annoying, you right in thinking that.

Apology accepted.

I wasn't really apologizing, it was a lot more to the effect of "I'm sorry that you want to be so one-sided in your response, as I thought I had more respect for you than that". So, I think you've now misunderstood something else that I've said.

Also, I'm only responding now to try and clear yet more of YOUR misunderstanding. But be advised, while I can't promise you that I'll never post in this thread again, I will promise to take a far lessened interest in it. And I don't intend on making any more comments in this thread if I can help it. Call me Chicken, call me what you like, bye.

Mine's better than yours!
No it isn't!
Yes it is!
No it isn't!
Yes it is!
No it isn't!
Yes it is!
No it isn't!
Yes it is!
No it isn't!
Yes it is!
etc, etc, etc...

Linuxers linuxing around, confirming all clichés.

linux is what's trending

Now that is a good reason for using it.

Originally Posted by jsbjsb001 I was talking about what I put in bold. Not what you put in bold.

You could have clarified that a lot earlier. However it really still boils down to the same thing:

you: "M$ doesn't have most of the desktop market because of market share, but instead because yes, they were very clever with making agreements early on, when the PC industry was still evolving."

me: "they have the largest desktop market share by far [...] what deals they have with OEMs and what tactics they have used are irrelevant. They have the vast majority of the desktop market share."

you: "I wasn't saying that M$ doesn't have the most market share in the desktop market"

So does MS have most of the desktop market share or not?

Originally Posted by jsbjsb001 See... I'm using a "tactic", so now you're accusing me of another thing again.

Well you decided to read/skim my blogs and pull out some quotes...

Originally Posted by jsbjsb001 But we can leave it there, as once again, if you can't see anything wrong with any of your responses, well then, there's no point in even talking about.

Again the "mote and the beam".

Originally Posted by jsbjsb001 I wouldn't say that. But, I would say that I'm not going to continue in a thread where I'm once again being accused of saying things I have NOT or what I HAVE said being twisted to suit yourself. Let alone you being so one-sided when talking about insults being exchanged and still barely (if even) admitting that fact. So yes, that IS very annoying, you right in thinking that.

I haven't "twisted" anything.

You took a quote I made about Linus Torvalds and made it into something else and put double quotes around it. It really doesn't get much twistier than that.

You seem to find it "annoying" that I'm not directing anything at YesItsMe - several of your comments in this thread have made reference to this so far. Your repeating this again and again isn't going to add any weight to your arguments.

Originally Posted by jsbjsb001 I wasn't really apologizing, it was a lot more to the effect of "I'm sorry that you want to be so one-sided in your response, as I thought I had more respect for you than that". So, I think you've now misunderstood something else that I've said.

At least you've cleared that up.

Originally Posted by jsbjsb001 Also, I'm only responding now to try and clear yet more of YOUR misunderstanding.

What a coincidence...

Originally Posted by jsbjsb001 But be advised, while I can't promise you that I'll never post in this thread again, I will promise to take a far lessened interest in it. And I don't intend on making any more comments in this thread if I can help it.

Harsh.

Originally Posted by YesItsMe Linuxers linuxing around, confirming all clichés.

Says a person using Gentoo!?

So please explain why you use Windows to promote BSD. I really doubt anybody disagrees that BSD is more secure but then again doesn't it use mostly Linux software? like desktops etc?

This thread is not about Mac, but here goes. Mac has drifted pretty far from its bsd roots, however an open source version of it is being worked on here. http://www.puredarwin.org It doesn't claim to be bsd

I also use Windows. It is where I do most of the work. The difference is that I don't run into forums claiming that my OS makes me smarter than other people's OS. Windows users don't do that.

Originally Posted by YesItsMe Linuxers linuxing around, confirming all clichés.

Microsoft fanboy trolling around.

Ok lets reword this:

So please explain why you brag up Windows to promote BSD. I really doubt anybody disagrees that BSD is more secure but then again doesn't it use mostly Linux software? like desktops etc?